1981 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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 )

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6653 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Reading and Receiving Petitions

Clerk Assistant –– 6653

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment

Mr. Strachan –– 6653

Mr. Nicholson –– 6654

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6659

Mr. Levi –– 6659

Mr. Richmond –– 6662

Mr. Passarell –– 6664

Mr. Brummet –– 6667

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1981

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Reading and Receiving Petitions

CLERK-ASSISTANT: In the matter of several documents presented as a petition

to the House on November 25, 1981, by the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms.

Brown), said documents are irregular in the following respects: namely, the

form thereof does not conform with appendix A to the standing orders, and further,

does not conform with the requirements of standing orders 73(4) and 73(5).

All of which is respectfully submitted,

Ian M. Horne, Clerk of the House.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. STRACHAN:

Mr. Speaker, we had some fun yesterday with the amendment. For the

benefit of all the members I would like to restate the amendment before

it's defeated:

"That this House regrets that

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

of the government have resulted in economic stagnation, and further

fails to provide proposals for the strengthening of the economy of the

province so as to provide full employment opportunities for all our

people."

I guess the first thing one has to ask is: who is writing this? It's an

extremely convoluted sentence in the first place; and, of course, it's totally

incorrect in the second place.

However,

on reading the amendment I feel that a few points of clarification are

needed. For example, when you talk about "all our people," do you mean

just NDP MLAs, or do you mean members of the provincial NDP, or who?

Maybe by "all our people" you mean the Downtown Eastside Residents

Association. Is that who you mean? You've got to be careful of those

folks; they'll put the bite on you. You talk about unemployment "for

all our people." When they talk about employment for all our people, I

have to ask of the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition if our

government has brought in a mineral royalty scheme that has driven the

industry out of the province. No. Has our government reached and

achieved such a dismal economic record that the province has a

declining population? No. As a matter of fact, our record of job

creation is enviable. The inconsistency is the NDP, and the

inconsistency in their debate is incredible.

Their speechwriters, I think, must be schizophrenic, Mr. Speaker. The opening

speaker, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), blasts us in the first place

for having too many job creating projects like northeast coal, then 30 minutes

later proposes an amendment that suggests our government is not creating jobs

— all the time knowing full well that northeast coal was an NDP election promise

in 1975. You know, this is like Mr. MacEachan's budget — now you see it,

now you don't. Guess under which shell we're covering our argument.

Members opposite have a difficult time, Mr. Speaker, reconciling the northeast

coal initiative. When they were government they had a $1 billion program to

develop north-east coal — and this was an NDP negotiation reached without the

knowledge of the participating coal companies. Now, in spite of the fact that

they wanted to develop northeast coal, they are critical of our negotiations.

Northeast coal will be the most significant development project in British Columbia.

Prince

George contractors and construction forces have done extremely well

under the development so far, and in this period of a declining lumber

market, northeast coal is a tremendous lift to our economy. Speaking

from my perspective as a Prince George member. one example of the

initial benefit to Prince George from this development is that the CNR

have indicated that they will increase their Prince George permanent

employment force from 600 men to 900 men with the advent of northeast

coal. The British Columbia Railroad will increase their Prince George

workforce by 50 men, and this is just one segment of the infrastructure

needed as the development comes on line.

Mr. Speaker, as a

member for the central interior I'm pleased to note the initiatives

concerning increased highway improvement, In my riding improved

highways are a resource. They are a resource in terms of the tourist

industry, they're a resource in terms of improved lifestyle and a

resource in terms of general economic development.

Mr.

Speaker, I remember a former Minister of Highways who took an opposite

view and thought that U.S. tourists should be banned from our highways.

However, we've come a long way since then. We have an excellent highway

system. We have a $2 billion tourist industry with much of the revenue

coming from rubber-tired vehicle traffic. In my riding alone, the

beautiful Robson Valley, motel operators tell me that their tour bus

business is up over 50 percent from 1980 to 1981, with a sizeable

increase already being booked for 1982.

The throne speech

mentioned resource development highway initiatives, and I'll use my

time once again today to point out to the Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) that the northeast coal project will

cause some pressures on roads and bridges leading to Prince George. The

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and I are looking forward to the

highways development that will occur as the northeast coal project

proceeds.

Mr. Speaker, it is generally recognized that we live in the finest province

in Canada. We really lack for nothing: economic development, the finest in health

care and social programs.... This is evidenced by the amount of Canadians from

other provinces who migrate to British Columbia. An average of 1,000 per week

come to seek opportunity and a new home with a promise and a future.

His

Honour's throne speech articulated policy on a range of government

initiatives. You have had two and a half days now to peruse the throne

speech and offer alternative policy and suggestions. Hon. members

opposite, are you up to the ask? Have you policy to present in detail,

or are you going to have to go back to your convention next year and

explain again that you're ineffective members? We know your policy on

provincial resources: give it away. We know your policy on the

constitution: give B.C. away. We know your policy on highways: send the

tourists home. We know your policy on mining: stop it, leave it in the

ground. We know you're against free collective bargaining. Perhaps you

could add to be list of NDP policy statements.

MR. SPEAKER: The member will continue to address the Chair.

[ Page

6654 ]

MR. STRACHAN: Perhaps you might add civil disobedience to

your policy statements. Perhaps, if you don't like debate — the

parliamentary process — you could further advocate locking the doors of

the Legislature.

You've insisted that we don't have

proposals. Tell me, is locking the doors of the Legislature the NDP

proposal? If it is, then the smallest problem we have is the economy.

For thousands of years men and women have fought and died for the right

of free speech. Our party happens to believe that our parliamentary

system is still the finest form of free speech. Democracy is a fragile

institution, Mr. Speaker, and throughout the world democracy has many

enemies. Let us hope that in British Columbia we will never see the day

where free speech is denied and we find they are locking the doors of

the Legislature.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, it's a

pleasure to be here in the Legislature, I suppose, but one would hope

that we were here for more than just a little ceremonious ritual to

bring forward an empty and hollow document and then to be trundled back

off to our constituencies.

We are in the most serious

economic times that I can remember, having been born in 1936, and not

recalling with any precision the economic times of the thirties. But

certainly these are the most serious economic times that I have ever

experienced, and that includes that turndown in the economy in the late

1950s, in which I found myself in unemployment insurance lines and

applying for jobs at minimum wage and anything that would help to keep

some bread on the table of our family and to contribute. So I can't

help but come to this Legislature with a little bit more understanding

of how all of our constituents must be feeling to see so much

self-adulation, so much self-congratulation. Mr. Speaker, it is

shameful that in these very serious and troubled times we come here and

come out with such hollow documents and a housing policy which is said

to perhaps cost as much as $6 million.

Do you know how much

money we spent in the last year of the New Democratic administration

just on senior citizens' housing alone sponsored by non-profit

societies such as the Kinsmen, the Rotary, and all of those fine

societies that were set up in order to bring housing at affordable

rents to senior citizens? Just for senior citizens, $10 million was

allocated and spent during that year on that one program alone. With

that we levered money from the federal government. There were other

programs as well. At that time there was

section 40 and 43 of the

National Housing Act, by which we brought on an equal number of housing

units for senior citizens, and we also put out proposal calls. We

brought on affordable rental housing for families, for people who might

have been on social assistance, and for people who were working — and

most of them were working — but without enough income to afford rents

in the very high amounts.

I guess I come from a little bit

different background than some of you, or some of you have darn short

memories about your backgrounds. I happen to have grown up in North

Burnaby, as some of you have. I happen to have grown up in the Capital

Hill–Vancouver Heights area. Some of you seem to have forgotten your

roots and what it's like to have that uncertainty in tough times. You

happen to be the ones who succeeded. Well, don't give yourselves all

the credit. There was a little bit of luck if you have succeeded. There

was also some bad luck for some people who may have even done more to

try to contribute to society but have come up a little bit more

empty-handed.

In my riding I look at the statistics put out

by the IWA on unemployment in the forest industry. I don't believe

those statistics; they have got to be worse. They've got to have missed

some of the unemployment that is abounding like an epidemic in this

province.

I remember hearing the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) talk about her new program, which, I suppose, is

going to force mothers to nurse their children until they are five or

six years old.

MS. BROWN: Older than that.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, there's no limit, I suppose.

She

said that unemployment was 4.5 percent in Vancouver. I think people in

this Legislature should go and look and ask how Statistics Canada

arrives at those figures: with random samplings by telephone. You

should really question the reliability of those figures in the first

instance.

But I know this: in the riding of Nelson-Creston

the town of Salmo is virtually shut down. Louisiana-Pacific is the

sawmill in that town. It wasn't always called Louisiana-Pacific, It was

once called Rotter's Mill; but old Frank Rotter sold the mill to an

American concern before the NDP took office as government in 1972. That

American firm recently, under this Social Credit administration, sold

that mill again to Louisiana-Pacific. Louisiana-Pacific has no

commitment to its employees. It shut that mill down. What is more, they

play such hard ball that they even fired top management people who have

worked that mill and done their best, people who are damn good

managers, I must say, and good Canadians. This foreign company has

fired these people.

I objected to the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) at the time of that takeover. Regrettably, I have

been proven right in my fears which I expressed at that time. You want

to know the way to do things. I say the way to do things is to look at

these foreign takeovers and say, "No more foreign control," and to heck

with FIRA. We don't have to foist things on to FIRA. We have control

through our stumpage rates, through our Forest Act. We can stop

transfers of companies out of Canadian ownership or from American

ownership to another American ownership. We can force transfer of

American ownership of some of these small mills into a Canadian

ownership, and we could have another B.C. Cellulose Company, another

Crown corporation. We could manage these companies for the benefit of

our people, to provide employment for our people, and not for profits

when it's convenient for foreign landholders to go and shut down an

entire community.

HON. MR. GARDOM: How?

MR. NICOLSON:

How? You simply refuse to transfer the timber rights, which you can do

under the legislation you've brought into this House, Mr. House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's follow the rules of debate.

MR. NICOLSON:

We have other companies under Canadian ownership struggling to keep

going and to keep their employees going, but in spite of those efforts,

Slocan Pacific has had to lay off half of its employees in my riding.

We've had the woods people in B.C. Timber pretty well laid off

entirely. We've had a total shutdown of the plywood plant in

[ Page 6655 ]

Nelson;

now it has been started up again, but it's expected to continue for

only a month or a month and a half, then another shutdown, There's no

date for call-back for the employees of Louisiana-Pacific. B.C. Timber,

under BCRIC, is carrying on at maybe half-speed, except in the

pulpmill, which is much better but not in my riding.

We have

very, very serious economic times, and what could we be doing? Is there

any mention in this throne speech debate — not about a phony,

accelerated reforestation program.... On analyzing it and looking at

the number of trees planted in the last few years, it ends up that they

didn't plant any more trees in the Nelson forest district; in fact,

they planted fewer than in 1975 when things were simply done out of the

forestry budget.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a way, and that is not to knock British Columbian and Canadian enterprisers.

Oh, I see the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is here, if he's still the minister.

think of the people in my constituency who tried to create employment,

to create a new agricultural industry through a company called Swan

Valley Foods. It was supported by the provincial government of the day.

I compare that, type of support with the type now being given for

northeast coal — which is definitely holding down prices for southeast

coal. That's the information given to me by directors of BCRIC; that is

their considered opinion. But where some Canadian people are willing to

create new, diversified employment so that in the riding of

Nelson-Creston we would have more to depend upon than simply the forest

industry — which is always going to be cyclical — this government, in

spite of the fact that there were business people in there, never gave

that a chance.

It also upsets me when I go into a Safeway

and I see the plastic laminate pouch now being sold. That technology

was developed through people in Creston and other people at the

University of British Columbia, including Dr. William Powrie, who this

government uses for other purposes. I see that this product is now on

the market, but it comes from eastern companies. You see it also in the

United States. It is one of the lost opportunities, because this

government was bent on destruction of anything from the previous

government that they could possibly destroy.

Where they

couldn't destroy things, they tried to hide things. Look at the current

housing initiatives that have been announced. They're going to bring

Riverview on stream this year. The Riverview lands had been assigned to

a development company for all negotiations with the municipality and

for planning, design and fulfilment, and to bring housing on stream in

1976 and 1977. Do you know who we had in charge of that? Do you think

that wouldn't have happened if we had continued in government? Do you

think that the Riverview lands would not have come on stream on time,

had we continued in government? Who was running that show in the

Riverview lands? I see they're silent. I'm asking you who was running

the show, who had been hired by the government of British Columbia of

the day, to bring the Riverview lands on stream for 1976 and 1977. We

had hired Alvin Narod, the same person that this government now has in

charge of B.C. Place. So it would have come on stream. But this is the

initiative of this government — to bring on the Riverview lands now, in

We had Burke Mountain. Moving ahead, we had

submissions from about seven different competing design teams. We had

narrowed this down to three different teams from whom we were seeking

further, more detailed designs in their proposals. We had negotiations

going on with Port Moody over what I think was called the North Slope

in Port Moody, and that's one of the things that the government is now

talking about today.

Just think about what would have

happened to the affordability of housing had these projects not been

delayed. Just think of the situation that we might be in today and how

the mood of the people might be today if they were not in a

psychological state which is absolutely interwoven with the economic

condition of recession. People are not going out and buying consumer

goods, and retailers are feeling the pinch this year. They're not

buying skis. They're not buying cars. What they are buying, I suppose,

is Canada savings bonds at 19.5.

In this area we have seen

people forced to overextend themselves — buy housing that was way

overpriced — and now they are having to face the refinancing of these

mortgages, and it is entirely due to the fact that this government said

we'll just leave hands off housing and we will let the private sector

do everything. Well they didn't do everything. They went in and....

Even today they might continue to cream some of the luxury market to

build the types of units with three and four bathrooms and attached

swimming pools and saunas built in and one thing and another. But they

certainly aren't building the kind of housing that every B.C. citizen

needs at prices that they can afford.

Mr. Speaker, I am very

disturbed, too.... Well, first of all, I'd like to just make one

observation about this speech. Where do some of our economic problems

come from? Well, let's admit that some of them come from the United

States. Why do they come from the United States? You know that world

leaders are speaking out, and people around the world are speaking out,

against the arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States of

America. People in the United States are speaking out. People in Europe

are speaking out. And one might just think that government might have

the courage to express something, even-handedly, to both of these

superpowers in order to try to encourage discussions for peace, if for

no other reason than if we can't see that the threat of nuclear war can

lead to the entire elimination of mankind and the planet earth, then

maybe we could at least do this, realizing that the source of much of

the inflation, the source of the economic ills of the so-called free

world — and certainly, I suppose, the Soviet bloc — comes from this mad

arms race in which these two superpowers insist on trying to build

ever-increasing amounts of overkill and superiority. I think that a

little voice from the Legislature of the province of British Columbia

could be added to the growing world opinion which would seek to

preserve the peace that was so dearly fought for during the forties and

during earlier times, and seek to try to preserve that peace, rather

than lead to an escalation on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I

also have to question the inaction of the Premier of this province.

Lest my remarks that I have just made be misconstrued, I'm really

speaking about our taking a little bit wider view of things than simply

looking inside this province. All we do in the throne speech in terms

of the economy is say that the economy is bad in the United States, and

we can't do much,, about it. Well, I want to tell you that as far as

how the economy of the United States affects British Columbia, things

could get a lot worse if we don't start doing something about it. One

of the first things that should be done is that the Premier should meet

with Governor Spellman and

[ Page 6656 ]

Governor

Atiyeh. He should have been doing this long ago, and he should have

done it instead of taking a vacation when he came back from the

constitution talks. He should have done it before the constitution

talks.

There is a very dangerous threat to our forest

industry which arises as the result of lobbying by some small operators

in Washington state and Oregon. They have a different system of bidding

for stumpage down there. Some people went down there and bid up their

price for the right to cut timber in the national forests. They were

anticipating a longer run before the turndown in the U.S. economy and

the U.S. housing starts. They bid at very unrealistic prices and the

major integrated companies refused to compete, and they were successful

in getting the rights to cut timber. But what happened? Housing starts

dropped; the price of lumber dropped. They had bid so much per cunit

for that timber down in the northwest that they could not afford to

sell it, and they were stuck. So what did they do? They looked for a

whipping boy, and that whipping boy is Canada. That whipping boy really

turns out to be British Columbia. They lobbied and they got the voice

of their governor, particularly in Oregon. They talked to Governor

Victor Atiyeh of the state of Oregon, and he wrote to his senator, the

Hon. Robert Packwood, and he said that the wood products industry in

the United States faces a potentially disastrous economic situation due

in part to the importation of Canadian lumber. The Canadian government

subsidizes the wood products industry through artificially low stumpage

prices, thus giving Canadian lumber an unbeatable price advantage in

many U.S. markets. Now the sawmill strike in British Columbia is

settled, and Canadian lumber is re-entering the U.S. market.

the first place, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government does not set

stumpage; the provincial government sets stumpage. In the second place,

speculators on the U.S. scene were caught overbidding for the right to

cut timber. I think that those are the honest facts. Thirdly, Mr.

Speaker, the United States exports raw sawlogs even in these distressed

times when their sawmills are shut down, and I saw evidence of that

when I visited Coos Bay, Oregon, this fall. I would propose that the

Premier would have a conference with the governors of both the state of

Washington and the state of Oregon and maybe other northwestern states

in order to clear the air, and maybe adopt a common strategy toward

exporting raw materials at the expense of jobs on both sides of this

friendly border. I don't think that we're being served if we export raw

sawlogs; I don't think that the Americans are being served if we export

raw sawlogs; I don't think that the Canadian economy is being served

when the Americans are exporting raw sawlogs either. I think that this

little north-south dialogue in this area in which we live.... If they

were natural boundaries and not political boundaries, we would probably

find ourselves aligned here in the northwest. We have so much in

common. We are bounded by the Rocky Mountains, we have the Pacific

Coast, and there is certainly a great deal of similarity in the people

north and south of this border.

So I feel that we have not

been served. Here are some of the positive suggestions. We should look

very seriously at the sale of any sawmill which is taking place and

ensure that jobs will be preserved. An example even of a Canadian

sawmill being sold to another Canadian firm is Hadikin Bros. being sold

to Atco. From what I understand, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) had that application on his desk for four months, and after

four months of careful consideration he just sent back a simple letter

allowing the deal to go through with no conditions. Hadikin Bros. was

shut down totally. A group of people was put out of work.

About

two miles up the road from Hadikin Bros. we see the Kalesnikoff

sawmill. Both mills were built within about a year of each other. The

Kalesnikoff mill is the one mill in my constituency that I can say has

full employment. It has full employment and it is run with a tremendous

amount of rapport between the ownership and management, which is one,

and the employees. They're all striving for the highest productivity,

knowing that they're in a very competitive market, and there is full

employment there.

I think that the minister's failure to

look at conditions, to look at how individuals would be affected by

that sale of Hadikin Bros. to Atco without any conditions, was

absolutely derelict in duty and obligation to the people. So this is

one of the things that we can do.

As I say, I think that the

highest priority in British Columbia should be the highest-level

meeting between the first minister of this province and the governors

of those states that are concerned about the importation of Canadian

lumber and the effect on their economies. Instead of being at

loggerheads with each other, we should be looking at ways of

cooperating with each other and improving both of our economic

conditions through cooperation rather than confrontation. I see no

evidence of that. I see no mention of that in this debate, and that

does not encourage me in terms of the things that we have to do.

might say once again that we would not have created BCRIC and just left

the economy of all of the areas served by Can-Cel, Plateau Mills and

Kootenay Forest Products to the whim of an inexperienced board of

directors, which, instead of expanding jobs in the existing industrial

structure that they had, and instead of building the additional pulp

facilities — which even now they are still talking about doing at

Castlegar went ahead and bought the already thriving Kaiser Coal.

think that all that one can say is we definitely would have done things

differently. We definitely would have had additional pulp capacity at

Castlegar by this time. We would have taken the last economic upturn in

pulp. I believe that pulp is now taking a little bit of a downturn, but

we would have caught that last swing in the economy. That addition to

the Castlegar mill would have been very viable. It would have meant

that these small mills that I've talked about — Slocan Forest Products,

Hadikin Bros., Kalesnikoff — would have had a market for their pulp

logs. It would have meant that instead of logs, which I showed you

during the session last year, being decked to rot out in the bush — and

the jobs to rot with those logs — those logs would have been utilized,

instead of just returning to the biomass of the earth, having served no

useful purpose,

That is what the New Democratic Party would

have done. If we're given the chance, this is the direction that we

would follow, rather than say: "Let's just toss everything up in the

wind and let it fall where it may." It's no longer the way it works in

this world. It doesn't work in Japan. I don't know what the philosophy

of the Japanese government is — right, left, centre — but I do know

that they have a planned economy. I do know that there is government

intervention and government involvement and tripartite involvement.

know that in West Germany they have had the most stable currency, the

most stable employment figures, and just about every other indicator

that you can have, amidst an absolutely threatened and unstable area in

terms of peace, sitting right in the middle of the confrontation

between super-

[ Page 6657 ]

powers.

In spite of that they have had a good economy, a solid dollar, good

interest rates, good employment, and they've had government involvement

in terms of a planned economy; but this government has said: "Let's

just let everything go. By being here, we're going to create the

climate." Well, that just doesn't work in 1981; it didn't work in 1971,

and it certainly won't work if that's the way we're going to face 1990.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and I were

discussing who might take their turn in this debate. We tossed a coin,

and I'm now standing here.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want

to welcome you back to the House — looking in very good shape — and

wish you the very best of good health.

On a personal basis,

I want to note the mention of Waldo Skillings, who passed away very

recently. There are a number of members in this House who were here

when Waldo was here and will remember Waldo with a great deal of

affection. They had seen him around the streets of Victoria since those

days. I can well remember some of those wild debates that Waldo took

place in. It's interesting to go back over some of the newspaper

clippings of those days. As a matter of fact, I might say that at one

point in the debate in 1971 Waldo predicted the entry of the present

Premier into this Legislature. That's on record, if you want to examine

some of the archives. On a personal note, I want to extend to his wife,

Helen, and to his family, on behalf of other members here, our sincere

regrets at Waldo's passing.

Also just a brief comment, on a

personal basis, on the recent constitutional meetings and the effort

put forward by the British Columbia delegation. Both the political side

and the staff were absolutely tremendous. I think other members of this

side of the House have an undying appreciation for the effort that was

made, in particular by our Premier Bill Bennett. I say this not as an

MLA but on a personal basis, as a Canadian and as a British Columbian.

I think we should not forget the effort he made to cause the meeting to

take place which brought this matter to a conclusion. But for his

personal effort to visit every province in this country, the meeting,

which was an extremely important one, would not have taken place. On

behalf of all Canadians, I think we owe him a debt.

We have

before us an amendment to the throne speech. I've read it a dozen

times, and I just can't believe that this could be put together in the

fashion it is. It's hard to imagine the wording and how anyone could

conceive this amendment. There might have been other opportunities as

to how to word an amendment, but this one states that the throne speech

fails to provide proposals for strengthening the economy of the

province so as to provide full employment opportunities for all of our

people. My goodness, the throne speech is absolutely loaded with

opportunities and plans for the future for gainful employment in this

province. I looked at that time and time again. As I say, I can't

believe the wording in that amendment. Was it written by two comedians

— Laurel and Hardy? I read it again, and the team of Lea and Gabelmann

have written this amendment. It must have been done in good humour. On

that basis, I accept the nature of the amendment. It's either that or

they were reading the wrong speech. Is there another version that I

haven't seen? Perhaps there is. You can send it across. Please do that.

It says it fails to provide proposals for strengthening the economy of

the province.

Just take page 3, job-creating investments: a

new jet-engine overhaul plant, expansion of coal-mining in the

southeast of the province, a new methanol plant at Kitimat. Do you mean

to say those don't create job opportunities? Page 3: number of people

employed in this province up 28 percent since 1974; 40,000 new jobs in

the past year; 1,257,000 people gainfully employed right now in the

province of British Columbia.

Page 4 — this has been

belittled by a member opposite — "plans for an economic development

conference this spring." You talk about making plans for the future for

full employment in this province. That's a very good initiative put out

by this government: an economic development conference in the spring.

Housing

programs. Mr. Speaker, I won't go over all the details of the housing

programs but, for heaven's sake, there's nothing that creates more

employment than housing. If there is any individual initiative that

creates employment, it is new housing.

Page 6: northeast

coal. Six thousand jobs will be created in the development of the area

for northeast coal, and five thousand of those will be permanent jobs.

Is that to be called an initiative that fails to provide proposals to

strengthen the economy of the province? That would be absolutely

ridiculous. This throne speech deals with the practical realities of

today. It's a good throne speech which deals with factual matters — the

issues of today.

I'd just like to comment on two or three

points in the throne speech itself, which have to do with items that

might interest members of the Legislature. The first one of these major

areas which are referred to in the speech is advancement opportunities

within the public service. As members may be aware, my ministry issued

a news release in February of this year which concerned an advancement

opportunities report which was commissioned by the Public Service

Commission and prepared by the Ministry of Industry and Small Business

Development.

The report deals with career advancement for

women within the public service. At that time, I mentioned that it was

the intention of this government to eliminate bias and attitudinal

obstacles which may have blocked career development in the past. In a

continuing process of review and modification of recruitment and

training programs, the Public Service Commission has taken a number of

operational steps to implement recommendations of that report.

For

instance, a wide variety of new training programs have been introduced

during the past year, increasing and improving training opportunities.

Recognizing that for many years the women's role in the public service

has been at the secretary and clerical level, my ministry's staff

development branch has concentrated training efforts for secretarial

and clerical workers. By the end of this year, eight courses will have

been completed, broadening the career horizons of these workers through

administrative courses by providing them with the training to apply for

administrative and supervisory positions. Next year the number of these

training courses will increase to 20.

At the senior

secretary level, again, courses to broaden career horizons — courses

that teach supervisory skills, organizational behaviour and attitudes

in the workplace — are the key. At the supervisory and senior staff

level, courses dealing with attitude, bias and skill development are

underway.

The growth of these programs in the past year is incredible. It is an increase of almost 100 percent. The public

[ Page 6658 ]

service

principle of hiring and promoting on merit and the growing

opportunities for career development and training will go a long way to

removing the old stereotypes of women in the public service.

Other

steps have been taken by the Public Service Commission under my

ministry. For instance, an inventory of qualified candidates for

management positions within the public service is being established

where feasible. Today, both men and women sit on selection panels for

all levels of employees. That's a new initiative, Mr. Speaker. The

commission is directly involved with Interchange Canada, which allows

management assignments for varying periods in other jurisdictions.

Also, career counselling is offered by the commission and plans are

underway to develop comprehensive career information packages for

public service positions.

Mr. Speaker, equal opportunities

do not limit themselves to one group. During this International Year of

Disabled Persons, the Public Service Commission has followed through

with the Premier's commitment that it is the responsibility of all

ministries to support the personal placement program to make 1981 a

meaningful occasion with lasting results.

This means that

efforts to ensure the workforce is open for disabled British Columbians

are ongoing; it is not merely a token effort because attention has been

focused on them for this one year. Between 1975 and 1977, annual

placements of disabled British Columbians in the public service

averaged 73 each year. That figure continues to grow and, as of

November 16, 1981, 305 placements have been made so far this year. The

referrals and success rate within the personal placement program

continue to escalate and will continue long after the Year of Disabled

Persons has ended.

Now a further item in the throne speech,

Mr. Speaker, that I would like to draw your attention to is the item of

pensions. Currently there are two major components in the pension

system in Canada. One is the private component, including private

pension plans, retirement savings plans, and other individual savings

arrangements. The other is the public pension component, including

old-age security benefits, the Canada Pension Plan and top-up programs

such as the B.C. guaranteed available income for need program, or GAIN.

Together, private and public pension plans play an important role in

the retirement security of British Columbians today and in the future.

The

last five years have seen increasing debate over the adequacy of the

pension system in Canada. I think it is pretty clear that the pension

system has been thoroughly studied, and it is time to translate these

findings into responsible and effective reform of the pension system.

There's been a great deal of consensus as to the problem.

Firstly,

there is general agreement that in light of today's highly mobile

employees there is a need for more pension portability. Secondly,

pensions need to be better protected against inflation. Thirdly, there

is a need to ensure better protection for women under the pension

system. Fourthly, there is agreement that the Canada Pension Plan costs

are going to continue to multiply. I emphasize costs, Mr. Speaker. The

plan is not adequately funded, and the rates of contribution required

under the plan to pay for current benefits will increase in future

years. Ultimately the cost of today's benefits will be close to 9

percent of covered salaries. The cost of existing benefits is on a

collision course with the ability and the willingness of working men

and women to pay those costs.

Mr. Speaker, this does not

mean improvements cannot be made. For instance, consideration must be

given to bringing the covered earnings under the Canada Pension Plan up

to the level of the average industrial wage in Canada. The current plan

provides for automatic annual increases in covered earnings of 12.5

percent.

Because of inflation, these increases have scarcely

exceeded the rate of increase in average wages. Little progress has

been made towards the goal of increasing Canada Pension Plan covered

earnings to the level of average industrial wages. Lastly, there is

another area that is being debated and discussed; that is the adoption

of a provision under which a person is permitted to drop out for

benefit competition purposes the years spent rearing children under the

age of 7. Such a change would be of tremendous value to women who are

combining a career with the vital function of raising a family.

these points I am referring now to the certain inadequacies in the

Canada Pension Plan and the cost problems that it is facing in the

future related to its present benefit level.

One final thing

that I would like to mention is the notion of pension standards

regulations, ensuring that pension systems, private and public, are

viable and effective in the future. Today we are one of three provinces

not regulating private pension plans, although many B.C. plans are

subject to regulation by another jurisdiction. With this concern for

pension reform in mind, I will be asking the House and all of the

people of British Columbia to consider a provincial report on pensions.

This report will deal with issues and concerns and suggest actions that

can determine the best course for British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I

would ask all those in the House and all British Columbians interested

in pensions to consider this report when it is tabled and provide their

input. I would appreciate the comments of the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) at that time, after he has studied the

report. After all, retirement, which may interest him, is something we

look forward to, and I would prefer British Columbians to look ahead to

dreams of a secure retirement rather than financial nightmares.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for sports and recreation in our province

I have occasionally been asked why we spend so much time, effort and money on

athletics and recreation. I think the best answer comes from the Supreme Court

judge, Earl Warren, who said: "I always turn to the sports page first.

The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page is nothing

but man's failure." A bit simplistic perhaps, but the meaning is very

clear. Youngsters of this province deserve the opportunity to participate, to

achieve, not just in winning medals but in working hard and being proud of their

individual achievements.

This

summer I had the opportunity to see our young men and women compete at

the Canada Games at Thunder Bay. Each of them represented their home

town and province. I'd like to say how proud I was of their

performance, both on and off the field. Some 350 young athletes from

British Columbia took part.

In order to give every British

Columbian the opportunity to participate, B.C. has established some

unique programs. Our winter and summer games involve some 200,000

British Columbians each year. Our athletic assistance program is the

best in Canada — the very best — and the result is the growing number

of British Columbians competing at national and international levels.

[ Page 6659 ]

His Honour pointed out in the throne speech, the Road to the Olympics

program is underway. The aim here is to bring national teams to train

in British Columbia. Through their training and exhibition matches with

British Columbia's athletes, as well as coaching and training clinics,

British Columbians have the opportunity to see and work firsthand with

world-class athletes.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, on relevancy in debate, we have before us a motion to

amend the motion thanking His Honour for the gracious speech which he

doth bequeath upon us. But the minister is talking about women's grass

hockey, and I fail to see the relevance of that to the motion, which

says that the speech fails to recognize that the economic policies of

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

to provide proposals for strengthening the economy of the province so

as to provide full employment opportunities for all our people. Perhaps

the minister can relate this to his argument, which I would assume

would be that we're not in economic stagnation and so on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Thank you. Hon. members, notwithstanding the amendment before us,

traditionally, as all members will agree, the throne speech and

amendments thereto have always allowed a relatively wider scope of

debate. Nonetheless, the point that the member has made is a good one,

and I would ask the minister in his remarks to relate in some degree

to....

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, on the same

point of order, I would agree with you wholeheartedly that during the

throne debate, about the only thing you cannot do is criticize the

judiciary or Her Majesty, and just about anything else goes. But in a

motion, when there's an amendment, I think that the rules of relevancy

apply, and I think that has been the practice in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member makes a good point. The minister continues on the amendment.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the member's remarks and

suggestions. In dealing with these young people who are busy in sports

and recreation activities in our province — and the province is

involved with them — we're of course referring to the future leaders of

this province who take

part in the advancement of our economy. People

who are now taking

part in soccer, women's field hockey, rowing and so

on are obviously going to be future leaders of this province. I'm sure

the member agrees with that. I won't attempt to abuse the rules of this

House in dealing with the amendment, but, of course, in dealing with

the amendment it is most difficult to not reflect on what the throne

speech has in terms of advancing the economy and therefore to deal with

the throne speech itself.

If I may just continue very

briefly with the Olympics program, we are currently negotiating to set

up training centres, which will of course create some employment, for

track and field, middle-distance running, discus, javelin and the

hammer throw. In soccer, the national team will train here, and along

with the province's top soccer players, will tour B.C. carrying on

exhibition matches as well as training and coaching clinics. Underway

for 1982 and 1983 are plans for a friendship soccer tournament bringing

national and top touring teams from other countries to compete in

exhibition games with our national team.

So, Mr. Speaker,

British Columbians are going to have tremendous opportunities and

tremendous employment is going to be generated in the future by way of

their learning and participating with these high-calibre athletes as

our country prepares for the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984 and, of

course, beyond that the Calgary Olympics in 1988. This is what this

province is doing currently in what is known as the Road to the

Olympics Program to generate interest and allow for these international

athletes to in fact train right here in British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker, as I draw my remarks in this debate to a conclusion, I want to

remind the members of the commentary on the throne speech having to do

with the new B.C. Festival of the Arts which is to take place in

Kamloops in June of next year, a very exciting event that will for the

first time ever bring together finalists in the field of dance,

musicians, actors and artists. A committee is now well established and

underway, and exciting events are taking place in what will become

something of a new achievement in British Columbia, focusing at one

place and one time all of these artists for a B.C. festival.

was also pointed out in His Honour's speech that the electoral process

is perhaps the most important part of our democratic system of

government. In this session legislation will be introduced that will

improve the accuracy and the timeliness of our voters' list. The right

to vote is something that everyone in this House takes very seriously.

I will be introducing in the House legislation providing for a complete

province wide enumeration before every future provincial election; as

well, polling day registration will be added, providing the maximum

opportunity for any eligible British Columbian to cast his ballot.

Mr.

Speaker, I am therefore very pleased with the direction in which my

ministry's branches are headed and add my support through this to the

remarks related to those in the Speech from the Throne. Once again, I

find that personally it's very difficult to support the amendment

before us; I'm just incredulous of the wording directed at the lack of

ability to strengthen the economy in the throne speech. As I said, this

throne speech deals with today's practical realities and directly

addresses the fundamental issues. Therefore I support the throne

speech. I don't want to be negative, but I think I'm going to vote

against the amendment.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, that

was the most fascinating economic analysis that I've heard from the

middle of a hockey field or from the inside of a stadium. Well, I guess

we must appreciate "old ballot box"; he's doing pretty good and he's

made an effort.

I'd like to welcome the Minister of

Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who has just returned from one

of the finest popularity contests held in this province in the last few

days. I understand that all the farmers are unanimously behind him if

he'll resign.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I don't think so, Norm.

MR. LEVI:

Oh, yes. And you'll be next too, Mr. Minister of Finance. We can't go

through a third year of budgets with you saying, "We've got the biggest

budget in the world, " and six weeks later saying: "We made a mistake;

we can't count." We can't have that.

[ Page 6660 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got the wrong minister.

MR. LEVI: No, no, I've got the right minister — the one with the urea formaldehyde sticking out of his ears.

Mr.

Speaker, it's been traditional in this House during the throne speech

for a number of ministers to get up and take the opportunity to expound

on some of the policies of their ministries and not just basically

refer to the speech itself. It's always an option to do that — and

that's what the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) did. Although he

was not within the terms of the amendment, he told us what he was doing

in his ministry. We would hope that we would hear from the Minister of

Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) about what he is going to do. This is the

fellow who keeps falling over his tongue about exactly what the plan is

in terms of housing. We haven't heard him participate in this debate.

also haven't heard from the Premier in terms of the economic questions.

Yesterday, though, we did hear from the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). You know, it's always a

pleasure to read some of the fantastic rhetoric that that man can roll

off his tongue when he's making one of his high-fliers in this House,

as he's wont to do every year, usually using the same script,

invariably with his mouth in top gear and his mind in neutral and away

he goes. One of the things that he didn't touch on, which I want to

touch on in my speech, deals with small business. Now I just want to

quote to you, Mr. Speaker, what he actually said yesterday afternoon.

He said:

It's been said for some time that all this

government is interested in are the mega-projects. Well, I want to tell

you, Mr. Speaker, that we're very interested in the small business

community, but I want to tell you that the small businessman cannot

function and cannot grow in a stagnant or declining economy. Because of

a growing economy and because of the faith that people have in the

future, we've created a vacuum in which the small businessman can grow

and expand.... Oh, yes, some of them will go bankrupt, but not as many

as there were when you were government.

Presumably he was pointing across the way.

Now

I just want to deal specifically with that issue of bankruptcies — the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) was in

here before and he has now left. The figures of the bankruptcies in the

province or in the country that come up are a good guide as to exactly

what is happening with the economy with regard to the small

businessman. We don't often get very large companies going bankrupt,

but we do get a large number of small companies. I want to point out

that the important thing about examining the bankruptcy question is

simply not to look at the figures that come out every month from the

Consumer and Corporate Affairs ministry which say that bankruptcies in

the province of British Columbia up to September 1981 were some 410

businesses. What you have to examine is what part of all the

small-business problems are bankruptcies. It's generally accepted that

bankruptcies represent about 20 percent of the businesses that fail in

the province and in the country.

Last year Mr. Jack Biddle,

chairman and a chief executive officer of the bankruptcy trustees for

Clarkson Co. Ltd., said: "Bankruptcy figures do not include the many

companies that become insolvent, liquidate and disappear rather than

declare bankruptcy, nor do they include those businesses whose assets

are sufficient only to pay secure creditors."

To put it in

perspective in this province, we are in the same economic position as

other provinces in respect to interest rates. There's no doubt that we

have yet to get an accurate registering of the damage that the high

interest rate has done. We know, for instance, the problems that people

have in the renewal of mortgages. We have some idea of what takes place

when a businessman has to go and get capital, just basic cash flow, and

has been paying in the last three or four months, although the rate is

veering now, as high as 23 percent. It's certainly accepted that as the

bank rate goes up the small businessmen go out of business. That's a

very serious problem.

What the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) did not do yesterday was

simply address the problem that small business people have, without

talking about the climate in which they operate. That is the key thing.

We know that it's the small businessman who makes the greatest

contribution in terms of jobs. I just want to go to the figures of

September 1981 in which we're talking about 400 businesses which have

failed. During the same period this year there were 268 receiverships,

but these figures are not included in the bankruptcy figures.

Receivership is as difficult a process as bankruptcy, usually creating

the demise of the company.

There we have a situation in

which there is almost a 60 percent increase in figures. The key thing

that you have to look at in terms of bankruptcies and business

failures.... We're talking now about bankruptcy figures

and receivership figures. We have the chattel mortgage problem in which

people are being acted upon by chattel mortgages which they've used in

their businesses to secure cash and then are unable to meet their

obligation, consequently losing their businesses. Those people simply

close up. We know that is happening in the province in places like

Alberni, Duncan and Honeymoon Bay. There are a number of places where

they are directly affected by the downturn in the economy, particularly

where there is a forest-based economy.

When we look at the

enormity of the cost to business people we have to look at some of the

figures over the past few years. I want to talk for a moment about what

actually happens in the space of a year when you have 400 businesses

close down. Let's use the 1980 figure. In 1980 there were some $64

million worth of liabilities in this province. Bear in mind that that

figure represents just 20 percent of failed businesses in this

province. Yesterday the minister talked about the climate. From 1976 to

October of this year, the total amount of liabilities through loss of

businesses is some $320 million in this province. That's just on the

figures as we know them from the reports. These are liabilities. One

has to understand what's in those liabilities, because there is a chain

reaction. Very often the creditors, who should in fact have been paid

had those companies been operating, are in the same position and not

invariably have to go out of business. There is this terrible chain

reaction.

That's the situation that does exist, and that's

the kind of question that the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development has to address in terms of maintaining the businesses that

are presently operating. He can't tell us, as he did yesterday "Well,

there's fifty thousand times as many businesses being formed, my

friend...." You know, this is the kind of hyperbolic statement he

makes which really has nothing to do with what is actually happening in

the economy in respect to the formation of businesses. I'm talking

about small business. We hear very much about the attempts at

development of very large businesses. We are looking, waiting and

trying to understand exactly what's going on with the northeast coal.

We know at the moment that nothing is firm, nothing is fixed in terms

of scheduling, and nothing is fixed

[ Page 6661 ]

terms of the date of the first delivery of coal. What we have in the

throne speech in relation to the economy is the repetition of what we

had last year. But we are no further ahead in terms of that kind of

major development in what is secure.

I'm concentrating my

remarks on small businesses, the continuing development of the

small-business sector. We know that it's more than 60 percent of the

small businesses that produce the major part of the new jobs that are

found. That's something to concentrate on in terms of a continuing

development. Unfortunately, we didn't have the minister tell us

yesterday that that is the kind of thing he addresses himself to; and

he does not. It's only recently that we've had a reintroduction of the

LILA program, the small loans to companies, right in the midst of this

very serious crisis.

It's always worthwhile for the

government, in talking about the economy, to examine that question, to

examine the plus side, which is the development and the very serious

effects that the interest rates and to some extent the new tax

provisions have in respect to the business. That's the kind of thing

that the minister could talk about. He could explain exactly what the

government is prepared to do with respect to that very serious problem

of business failures. Business failures really are an accurate register

of how the economy is going, particularly in terms of the fiscal policy

of the federal government. We know that a major part of the economic

decisions that affect this province are not made here. They weren't

made here 10 or 15 years ago, and they're still not made here. But that

doesn't mean to say that the government should not make plans and put

them into operation for offsetting this kind of problem, which we know

is inevitable.

You don't have to be a seer to know that if

interest rates go up you're going to have serious problems with small

business. One of the most serious areas in small business is in the

construction industry, and yet we have waited more than two years for

the government to tell us what kind of housing policy they have, in

which they can stimulate the construction business — most of them are

small-business people — to give them some hope that there is going to

be work, and that they can keep their businesses going.

had an attempt by the government — a first tentative attempt — in

January 1980 to use what is clearly a socialist instrument, mortgage

subsidies, to create some 5,400 units from that $200 million mortgage

program. There is no question that that was a successful effort in

generating employment. It allowed small businesses and those in the

construction industry and those that get the spinoff, to maintain

themselves. But then they stopped, and now we have what must be

considered, Mr. Speaker, a very garbled statement by the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), as to what exactly their

plan is in the business of developing housing.

My colleague

the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who was Housing minister

under the NDP government, said that there is probably going to be in

the area of $5 million. That's the kind of infusion that they're

talking about in terms of a housing program, when almost two years ago

they talked about and did put up $200 million in mortgage money, agreed

to subsidize the interest rate from 9 3/4 percent to 13 percent, and to

lever for some $10 million, $200 million into the market. But we don't

have that kind of proposal. We have no details from the minister, and

we have no hope for the small businesses out there that there is going

to be some government pump-priming.

Finally, the government

has realized that there is a role for government in doing something

about the housing market. They are in no way going to be able to build

all the houses, obviously, nor take away that function from the private

sector, but there has to be some leadership in terms of the insertion

of money. Because we are dealing with literally hundreds of small

businesses which employ anywhere from 4 to 20 people. They are the ones

that make up the bulk of the creation of new jobs in this province, and

that's what we're talking about in this amendment when we talk about

the failure to make provisions for employment. We are not interested,

at this point in time, in these grandiose schemes, these megaprojects

which have yet to come to fruition. We're talking about an immediate

economic problem that has to be faced and met. It obviously has to do

with the housing market, the provision of a form of mortgage

subsidization. But most importantly, it will recreate employment,

particularly in the forest industry. In terms of home consumption,

somebody has to prime the pump; that's what this amendment is all

about. That's what's been missed over there. I can stretch my

imagination a long way, but what playing fields and hockey sticks have

to do with the generation of the economy, I can't understand at all.

The former speaker wanted to address frivolously the question of the

amendment in terms of its failure to provide job opportunities, but

that's what it's about. Last time when they had the mortgage

subsidization program they did it in exactly the same way it would have

been done through the savings and trust banking instrument — they went

to the credit unions and asked them to put out the money to the people.

Sure, great criticism could be levelled at who got those particular

opportunities. That was wrong, but the idea itself was basically very

sound. It creates employment and revenue and it does something to prime

the pump.

That is what we're trying to get from the

government. All we've got from them is that all of their problems are

the fault of Ottawa and that they themselves have no solution. They're

just going to lay back; they're going to cry, blame it all on Ottawa,

and somehow wait for things to change. There's no great difficulty in

supporting the amendment on that score. After all, they took steps two

years ago that were practical, but now they seem to be afraid to take

those steps again. If we are to believe the Minister of Housing that

all they're going to do in terms of a new housing program is to put in

$6 million, then we're going to be in very serious trouble, That is

not, in itself, any kind of program dealing with the creation of jobs,

Obviously that's not an adequate amount of money. We should have the

minister tell us what revenue gains resulted from that program that was

put in in 1980. Obviously there were revenue gains because of personal

income tax, corporate income tax, sales tax and the general purchasing

of goods that came through as a result of people having salaries.

That's basically what job generation is about — which is not here.

have addressed myself primarily to the small business sector, not to

the megaprojects, which, incidentally, are supported in a major way

with taxpayers' dollars. One can well ask the question: why all the

support for megaprojects with taxpayers' dollars, yet no reasonable

approach to support small businesses? That's the key question. It's a

question of where you place your priorities. The government has already

had a warning about the megaprojects. If they haven't learned anything

from the Manitoba situation of three weeks ago, then they've got their

head in the sand.

Basically we are moving into the darker days of the economic cycle. It's becoming much more desperate. The

[ Page 6662 ]

whole

question is people who are operating businesses and trying to keep

their heads above water; they are looking towards the government to do

give some help. The point is that that is the key question that has to

be addressed in terms of the failure of the government to do something

about the generation of jobs. That is the key thing in the whole throne

speech: small business was missing from the whole concern. We're

bringing it back to the reality of what is missing from the generation

of programs by the government for small business. Let's bear in mind,

as I said before, that they are the people that create the jobs, they

are the people who need to be supported.

All around this

province it's tragic to know that because we are so dependent on the

housing market in the United States we are suffering a drastic turndown

in the forest industry. The other day a representative of the IWA told

me almost 20,000 people are out of work in that industry; half of their

people are not working. If we can't find the markets outside for the

export of lumber, then we're going to have to address what is a very

serious problem inside and to create that kind of employment. It's

always been very mystifying to me that the government is not prepared

to address that problem. They have an opportunity to do it, based on an

experience that they had some two years ago. It's practical and it's

worthwhile and it's something that can be done now.

The

important thing is that the purpose of the amendment is to point out a

serious shortcoming — something that we could not get the minister to

address.

I would urge members on the other side to consider

this, to discuss their own situation in terms of where they come from:

just what is the situation with small business people? How many are

failing and how many jobs are being lost as a result of that? What they

propose to the government, if they're saying anything at all....

That's the key question right now. We can't expect to see an upturn

where there will be improvement well into the spring of next year,

basically because of what takes place in our economy after the post

Christmas period and what the general experience is.

Mr.

Speaker, I would ask that the members participate in this debate and

tell us their experiences and their solutions, because the reason for

the amendment is that there are no solutions for that serious problem

of job generation — generating jobs for now. I'm not talking about

megaprojects which won't come on stream until 1983, 1984 or 1985; I'm

talking about facing an immediate task now, and, what they are prepared

to do about it.

MR. RICHMOND: I'm speaking against

this amendment and in full support of the Speech from the Throne. I

would like to expand on some of the items contained in the speech,

every one of which affects our economy.

First of all, while

the throne speech makes reference to the constitution and its impact on

Canadians and our way of life, it does not mention the fact that the

Premier of this province, through his tremendous efforts in keeping

together a very loose-knit alliance of eight Premiers, emerged as a

truly great Canadian. I feel certain that Premier Bill Bennett and the

other seven of the so-called gang of eight will go down in history as

the saviours of this country.

To contrast the efforts of

some to discredit his performance, I would like to read a couple of

excerpts from letters from the other Premiers to Premier Bennett.

First of all, from the Hon. Peter Lougheed, the Premier of Alberta:

"As

one who sat at the table, I congratulate your skilful diplomacy and

unselfish dedication to the difficult task of pulling together the

diverse views of our country. It has been a critical and controversial

year significant in the history of Canada — a year in which you as

chairman of the Premiers can be proud."

I quote part of a letter from the Hon. William G. Davis, Premier of Ontario:

"There

is simply no question that the facts of the meeting itself, the

open-mindedness which existed prior to the meeting being held, the free

exchange of ideas and options which contributed materially to the

ultimate successful outcome, could not have happened without the

particular role which you played as chairman of the 1981 Premiers'

Conference."

MR. HALL: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, I realize that you have suggested that the throne speech is

traditionally one in which a wide-ranging debate can take place, and I

think examination of the various rulings over the years would indicate

that is true. However, as my colleague, the member for Nelson-Creston

(Mr. Nicolson) said, once an amendment is moved and seconded, then

debate must be limited to the terms of the amendment. I appreciate that

employment is mentioned in the amendment and the member for Kamloops is

talking about the future employment prospects of the Premier.

Therefore, if he wants to suggest that these are in effect testimonials

to the future employment potential of the Premier, then let's accept it

on that basis and look at the employment potential of other

participants there like Sterling Lyon or other Premiers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think we should at least allow the member speaking a little opportunity to formulate his discussion.

MR. RICHMOND:

I expect no particular favours from the Chair, but I would remind the

member that the constitutional accord has a great bearing on the

economy of this country and this province, and we think it affects the

employment possibilities of many, many more people than the Premier of

this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Kinsella?

MR. RICHMOND: Yes, probably him, too. I will just conclude this short quotation from Mr. Davis:

"May

I say to you that the people of British Columbia are particularly

fortunate to have been represented during these historic discussions by

someone with your sense of commitment and dedication. All Canadians owe

you a very great debt indeed."

As someone with a media background myself, I sincerely hope that these very significant statements will not go unreported.

Through

the Premier's efforts we are guaranteed ownership of our natural

resources — an ownership that no one in the future can take away from

us, as very nearly happened. I just want it on the record that I am one

Canadian and British Columbian who is thankful that we have such men of

vision and determination as our leaders.

There is no

question that the whole of this country is going through a very tough

economic time and it will probably get tougher during the coming winter

months, But I

[ Page 6663 ]

would

like to point out that of all the provinces in Canada, Mr. Speaker,

British Columbia is by far in the best shape and will suffer the least

from this slowdown.

B.C.'s strong economic base didn't just

happen by accident. It happened because of government initiative,

vision and sound planning in fields such as mining, in particular the

mining of our coal resources in both the southeast and northeast

sectors of this province. I shudder to think what kind of winter we

would have if we still had in place the mining and development policies

of the socialist government of the early 70s. It would indeed be a

bleak winter.

MR. KING: Quit picking on us.

MR. RICHMOND: Wait, Bill, I'm just getting warmed up.

am very pleased that this government has seen fit to initiate housing

policies to stimulate some activity, especially in the area of rental

accommodation. It's unfortunate that some of these measures were

necessitated by the federal budget of a couple of weeks ago, which

totally destroyed any incentive for Canadians to invest in this type of

housing in Canada. It's hard to understand, Mr. Speaker, how programs

such as the capital cost allowance program and the MURB program ceased

to be incentives and became loopholes overnight. Constituencies such as

mine were very seriously affected by this decision. Kamloops, as you

all know, is a very fast-growing community with a tremendous need for

rental accommodation. In fact, the vacancy rate in our community is

practically zero. Many projects that were on the drawing board,

totalling hundreds of rental units, were cancelled the day after the

federal budget was announced. Hopefully, the initiatives set forth in

the throne speech will restore most, if not all, of these projects.

This, coupled with the new rent-to-own program, should end the shortage

of rental accommodation.

It's difficult to understand the

thinking behind these moves in the federal budget, Mr. Speaker. By

closing a couple of so-called loopholes, the people they're hurting the

most are the people they're trying to appeal to with this type of

legislation. By gaining a few paltry dollars in income tax through the

elimination of a couple of these shelters, they will be costing the

taxpayers of Canada hundreds of millions of dollars in lost work by

tradesmen, in increased rents due to the zero vacancy rates in

apartments, in the lack of sale of building materials of all types, and

in all the spin-off trades that are involved.in building this type of

accommodation. It was a budget that I could have understood, Mr.

Speaker, if it had been written by the NDP, because they don't know any

better. But the Liberals should know better than to draft a budget such

as the one they did.

I'm also pleased to see the inclusion

of highway improvement in the Speech from the Throne. Specific mention

is made of the new and exciting Coquihalla Highway, which will be of

great benefit to the entire province and in particular to the people of

my constituency. It will reduce the travelling time and therefore the

expense of travel from the interior to the coast considerably and will

guarantee the people of the interior of this province another permanent

supply route as the pressure increases constantly on the existing

routes.

Mention is also made of converting existing two-lane

highways to four-lane routes where appropriate, and this applies

specifically to two highways in my constituency and will provide

employment. The Trans-Canada Highway west of the city of Kamloops and

the North Thompson highway, which is number five north of the city to

Heffley Creek, have been of concern to the people in and around

Kamloops for quite some time. I know they will be as pleased as I am to

see this program included in the Speech from the Throne.

would like to take just a moment, Mr. Speaker, if I might, to report on

the progress being made by one other very important highway project in

my constituency, and that is the construction of the Halston Street

bridge. Considerable progress has been made in the past few months

regarding plans for this bridge, with the actual survey work now being

completed. This will enable the highway engineers to identify the

actual land required for the bridge and approaches, especially on the

east side of the river, which in turn will enable the department to sit

down and negotiate the purchase of that land from the individual

locatees and the Kamloops Indian band itself. I feel reasonably certain

that a suitable agreement will be reached with the Kamloops Indian band

and we will see the construction of the Halston bridge commence

reasonably soon, as it is urgently needed by our very fast-growing

community.

As everyone is concerned with the increasing

number of accidents on our highways, I'm sure that everyone will be

pleased to see the priority being given to dealing with the bad

drivers. It is the view of many of my constituents — and I have

received several petitions on this matter — that the 55 miles per hour

or, if you prefer, 90 kilometres per hour, is doing nothing to decrease

the number of serious accidents on our highway system. In fact, it is

the feeling of most of these people that these restricted speeds are

causing many of our accidents. It is likewise my view that the public

would be better served if we were to put the speed limits on our

highways back where they belong, and that is to 60 miles per hour where

appropriate — or, if you prefer, 100 kilometres per hour — as most of

our highways were designed for these speeds. I urge the minister to

seriously consider this proposition.

The Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has mentioned the Festival of the Arts. I am

pleased to report another first for this government and for the

constituency of Kamloops. The first ever Festival of the Arts will be

held in the city of Kamloops in June 1982. It is not only a first for

British Columbia but also a first for all of Canada. It will involve

hundreds of amateurs from the fields of music, acting, the dance, and

artists from the four comers of our province in a tremendous spirit of

competition.

The people of Kamloops are very excited about

hosting this first Festival of the Arts, and are showing their pleasure

by turning out in large numbers to volunteer their help, as they did in

the Winter Games of 1979. I feel certain that Kamloops will set as high

a standard for the arts festival as they did for the Winter Games, a

standard that will be difficult and challenging for other communities

to match, but a standard that will make all of our aspiring musicians,

actors, dancers and artists strive for perfection.

It's

difficult for me to understand the talk of the opposition in these last

few days over the issue of electoral reform. If they will read page 14

of the throne speech they will find what it says. I won't quote it,

because the Provincial Secretary has already done so, but it assures

the people of British Columbia of the importance that we place on our

electoral process. I can only assume that they are continuing to pursue

this line of attack to cover the fact that they do not have a policy of

their own, or anything concrete or constructive — that I've heard

[ Page 6664 ]

so far — to contribute to the throne speech debate, and they keep flogging this dead horse.

would like to briefly mention an item that is all too easily passed

over, and that is tourism. Through the efforts of this government — a

government that invites people to visit us — the tourist industry has

grown to an industry that generates over $2 billion, creating

tremendous employment opportunities for many, especially for the young

people of our province. I think, that the minister and this government

are to be commended for their outstanding efforts in encouraging people

to visit British Columbia.

In closing, let me just make a

few points. The opposition has called this a speech for millionaires. I

would like to ask them: does a rent-to-own program sound like a policy

for millionaires? Does incorporating employment into the Labour

ministry sound like a policy for millionaires? Does "amendments to

the Securities Act to protect the small investor" sound like a policy

for millionaires? Does leadership on women's job opportunities sound

like a policy for millionaires? What about amendments to the Family

Relations Act? Does that sound like it's for millionaires? Does a

report on pensions for both the public and private sectors sound like a

policy for millionaires? Last but far from least, does a major

expansion of funding for day-care centres sound like a policy for

millionaires?

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the working

people of this province are thankful that they have a responsible

government, a government that is looking after their better interests,

a government that is concerned about how much personal income tax they

pay. The working people of this province are coming to realize that the

worst enemy they could possibly have is a socialist government, an

irresponsible government that makes statements such as: "We will buy

any sawmill that shuts down, and we will put the people back to work."

The working people of this province are not that gullible. They can

easily see through these empty statements designed solely to win the

favour of the labour bosses. I might add that the only people in this

province I ever hear advocating that others resort to anarchy and break

the law are members of the NDP and labour bosses.

MR. COCKE: Name one time. Give us one time.

MR. RICHMOND: I could give you several.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. RICHMOND: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they read the quotation from their own member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Let's hear it. What does it say?

MR. RICHMOND:

We have the exact wording, but I don't have it in front of me — I will

paraphrase. He advocated that people lock the doors of the Legislature

of this province. If that isn't anarchy, I'd like to know what is.

The

people of this province, Mr. Speaker, are thankful for a government

that recognizes that there is a time for restraint, and that possibly

this is the time. It is not the time for irresponsible spending that

would plunge this province hopelessly into debt, as has happened once

before. They have good memories, Mr. Speaker, and they're not

interested in the pie-in-the-sky promises that would make their

personal tax burden unbearable.

MR. PASSARELL: At the

outset, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome you back to the House, and

I hope that you're in good health and robust spirits.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to state that I thought the previous speaker's

statement about the NDP breaking the law was a little bit too hard to

handle. We'll just let it lie at that, because I think it was done more

in jest than trying to do....

Speaking of statements, at

the outset I would like to read something from the Speech from the

Throne that I hope members from the government might be able to

clarify. This amendment that I'm speaking in support of states in the

last sentence: "...fails to provide proposals for strengthening the

economy of the province, so as to provide full employment opportunities

for all the people."

Under the

section "Highway Improvement" on page 11 — and I'm quoting:

"...and the paving of road shoulders on rural gravel-road surfaces."

Now, Mr. Speaker, that does provide opportunities for employment, but I think

it would make more sense to go out and pave the gravel roads before you start

going around and paving the road shoulders. I don't know, Mr. Speaker, that

might be something out of Major Douglas' a plus b theory concerning paving

gravel-road shoulders before you pave the gravel roads, and I think it might

have been a mistake in the lawyers' writing of the throne speech. I would

certainly hope the minister could clarify that.

This

morning, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to touch on a number of issues

pertaining to the economy of this province as well as to the economy of

the Atlin constituency. In the north many communities are based on

resources, and particularly many residents of the communities live in

company towns. Now the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — and I

wish he was here so I could direct these questions more or less through

you, Mr. Speaker, to him — was talking about a grandiose housing scheme

of approximately $6 million, and also he has stated that it might be

impossible to implement the program due to the economy of the province.

Now we're talking about $6 million, which is a very token fee when you

look into the budget of approximately $6.6 billion. And when we see

money that's being allocated for monuments such as B.C. Place and Pier

B-C — hundreds of millions of dollars — $6 million for housing is a

very token fee. I would certainly hope the jobs that would be

associated with spending $100 million or $200 million for housing which

would benefit many people in this province would weigh more so than

building monuments in Vancouver.

Another issue I would like

to address is the Crown land aspect of the program. I wondered why the

minister made no mention of what Crown land for the rent-to-buy program

will be available in the Atlin constituency. There was no mention of

that. I would certainly hope that in the near future the minister could

relate exactly what land will be available.

On the question

of timber, to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), it doesn't

take much to travel through this province and look at the amount of

wood that's lying on the ground, rotting, that forest companies that

have come in

[ Page 6665 ]

clearcut have left to rot on the ground. By taking this wood that

forest companies find is not profitable at this time when they're going

in for larger logs, and by turning around and using this wood, instead

of letting it rot.... In many parts of the north, as the minister

might not be aware.... Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Forests, I hope that he might travel into the north and see

exactly how much wood is lying on the ground in tree-farm licence No.

1, just rotting, that could be used for the benefit of this economy and

this province.

Another issue in the economy of the province

in relation to this amendment is Silver Grizzly Timber. Two weeks ago

the Northern Times magazine, out of Terrace, did an exposé on the

sawlogs that Silver Grizzly are using through helicopter logging and

taking to Japan. This issue clearly shows the jobs being lost to

British Columbia through the export of sawlogs to Japan by Silver

Grizzly. I would certainly hope that if the minister hasn't seen the

article he would certainly look at it. It is causing a detrimental

effect upon the economy of the northwest

section of this province.

One

issue I'd like to talk about through the amendment in relationship to

the throne speech is native affairs. The relationship of the

constitution and the native affairs issue, particularly

section 34, is

pertinent to this amendment, when we're looking at the native people of

this province. We have seen....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. Perhaps the debate that the member is now

embarking on might best be carried out under the debate on the main

motion itself. The amendment to the motion does proscribe the scope of

debate quite considerably. If the member could relate his remarks to

economic policies or economic stagnation as they touch native

rights....

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you for your advice; that's exactly what I was going to do.

What

we've seen with native people is the highest rate of unemployment, the

highest rate of suicide, and the highest unemployment rate of any

socioeconomic group in this province. We see that

section 34 of the

constitution will in fact increase the unemployment of these people, by

not giving aboriginal right and title to the native people, without

their consent. In the last few weeks we have seen that the first

minister of this province has been very confused about the issue and

its relationship to the native people of this province and to this

amendment concerning the economy. I don't want to state at this time —

I'll do it during the throne speech — exactly his position on

section

34, which has been very confused. Just taking the statement out of the

throne speech itself, on page 2, "the elevation to first-class

status...." I would like to know how the Alberta compromise, which

is being pushed by the first minister of this province, elevates the

native people of this province to first-class status, when you deny

aboriginal title and consent in

section 34.

We all remember

a statement by the Attorney-General on July 23, 1979, stating that his

government did not believe in aboriginal title. It was relinquished, in

his words, "when British Columbia formed into the confederation." Mr.

Speaker, Mr. Gosnell, who is the president of the Nishga tribal

council, sent a telegram two days ago to the Minister of Justice, Jean

Chretien. I will not read the entire telegram because it would be

better used during the Speech from the Throne, but the president of the

Nishga tribal council relates this to the Speech from the Throne and to

the amendment just by the words: "We demand that the word 'existing' be

deleted from

section 34 as proposed by Premier Lougheed. Premier

Lougheed's proposals would only serve to entrench the right of the

Premiers to continue to deny the existence of our aboriginal title."

The

aboriginal title, Mr. Speaker, is very important to the economy of the

native people in this province. We're talking about vast resources in

this province that are in aboriginal title, and the development of

these resources, not at the expense of the native people, as we have

seen with the Amax issue.

Page 2 of the throne speech

mentions the "rights and freedoms to which Canadians have been entitled

throughout our history by way of tradition and custom." Mr. Speaker,

how can the government deny native people aboriginal title to their

land, to the resources that are underneath it, by custom and tradition?

Why has the first minister of this province denied aboriginal rights

and title?

An issue on the environment that was mentioned in

the Speech from the Throne was offshore resources, which is another

aspect involved with aboriginal title, as well as with environmental

protection in this province. We cannot develop offshore resources at

the expense of marine life and to the detriment of the people of the

coast. A suggestion is that before any further permits or leases be

granted to the multinational oil and gas companies, a full

provincial-federal public inquiry be held to ensure that we do not

repeat the North Sea experience of spills or oil rigs breaking up in

rough seas, and that before any development of offshore resources of

our province takes place, a contingency safety plan for environmental

protection be enshrined in law.

Another issue mentioned in

the Speech from the Throne was geothermal resources. Who will be

developing geothermal resources in this province? Will it be B.C.

Hydro, with their track record of financial disregard to the detriment

of the taxpayers of this province? Or will it be, as happened in many

other provinces. multinationals who gobble up leases, let them sit for

years, and then years down the road hold them up to the public of this

province for ransom?

A third issue concerning geothermal

development is that we must enshrine status protecting aboriginal

rights. Since major deposits of geothermal developments in this

province are particularly.... One of the major ones is about two or

three miles south of New Aiyansh in the Nass Valley — right on the

Nishga aboriginal title. We must be assured that any development of

geothermal developments is done with the consent of the native people

and in conjunction with their beliefs and suggestions.

The

third issue I'd like to discuss is waste management. We certainly need

something to develop and define some of the proposals under waste

management — to bring them into the twentieth century. We find many

regulations being very archaic and there are certain stipulations that

deny many residents of this province their free voice in appealing

decisions of waste management. I would certainly hope that the Minister

of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) will be able to develop a definite

improved program that will allow residents of this province, through a

freedom of information act, to see all data that the decisions are

based on.

Another issue I'd like to discuss under

environment is the world heritage sites. I'm certainly pleased to see

that the United Nations has taken upon itselves to protect a certain

heritage site in this province. But one of our most important

[ Page 6666 ]

heritage

sites are our rivers. Rivers are a natural heritage and presently we

are embarking upon consent to dam the last three wild rivers in this

province: the Stikine, Iskut and Liard. Just yesterday the headline of

the Vancouver Sun stated that the vice-president of B.C. Hydro

stated in the public hearings for Site C that it was a better program

for B.C. Hydro to build too many dams at the expense of taxpayers'

dollars and then worry later about the consequences down the road for

the economy of this province. We also had the president of B.C. Hydro

in San Francisco a few weeks ago talking to a group of businessmen. His

statements were that after the damming of the Stikine, Iskut and Liard,

probably in the twenty-first century, British Columbia would be moving

into nuclear development. I would certainly hope that the government

and this Legislature might be able to bring Mr. Robert Bonner into line

for making statements...

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: They won't? I'm sure they will.

...about bringing nuclear power to this province. Right now, Mr. Speaker,

we're exporting very cheap power to the United States at the expense of

the public of this province, who are paying for it through their tax

dollars.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL:

That's right. Yesterday the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), Mr. Speaker, was going wild in his

seat.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Could you control him? He's going wild, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development please observe the rules of debate. Please continue.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Concerning Hydro development, as was stated in the Vancouver Sun

article yesterday, we've seen that B.C. Hydro's philosophy is to build

too many dams at the expense of the people of this province. Right now

B.C. Hydro has a debt of around $7 billion, much more than the

provincial budget. We've seen further plans to develop northern rivers

for power — the last wild rivers in this province — at the expense of

about $15 billion to $25 billion. One particular dam, the Laird dam

will be the third-largest dam in the world. Where will this power be

going? The third-largest dam in the world is compounded upon the

Stikine-Iskut and upon the Mica, the Revelstoke and Site C.

HON. MR. McGEER: Are you against damming?

MR. PASSARELL:

I'm against the damming of the Stikine-Iskut and the Liard. I would

certainly hope, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Universities, that he would go up into the area and talk to people of

his support for damming the Stikine-Iskut and Liard:

particular, with this amendment, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the economy

of British Columbia........ One of the issues of the economy of British

Columbia to the native people who live on the Stikine and the Iskut is

salmon fisheries. I would certainly hope, through you, Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Universities, that he would understand the economy

associated with salmon fisheries by native people and the effect that

the Stikine and Iskut dam complex will cause upon their livelihood and

their economic base.

HON. MR. McGEER: Are you against damming the Liard, too?

MR. PASSARELL:

We know what the Minister of Universities believes about nuclear power.

I believe we can find a consensus in this province that we don't need

nuclear power, and, as well, that we don't need to build dams just to

build dams, as the vice-president of Hydro stated yesterday.

Another

issue is that there was no mention in the speech from the throne of

sea-farming, a very important issue to many northern residents,

particularly in the Stewart area, who have tried to develop the economy

in their particular area through sea-farming. There was no mention

whatsoever of that in the speech from the throne.

To change

the issue to health care, last year in the throne speech we had a

promise of rural health care. This year, during the throne speech, no

mention of it was made. I wonder why that didn't happen. It affects

people who live in the north, not just in my constituency but also in

that of my friend the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet).

The economy of northern residents is affected by that. I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, why this government was so quiet this year regarding rural

health care, and why there was no mention of it.

Another

point under this amendment to do with the economy and its effect upon

northern residents is that there was no mention of the legal use of

midwives. We find that in many rural areas of this province not

everyone has access to a hospital or a first-aid station or the use of

community care. There was no mention of improving expenditures for

public health work in the province, particularly for public health

nurses. Why are northern health centres, particularly in Terrace,

finding it very difficult to find funds for much-needed support

services, to fill the many jobs that are still needed for northern

health care?

An issue that this government neglected to talk

about was northern tax allowances, which the federal government,

through its latest punitive budget, attempted to steal from northern

workers. In 1979 and 1980 many northern workers were included by the

federal government in the northern tax allowances. This year, through

their latest punitive budget, this government has allowed its cronies

in Ottawa to simply remove the regulation protecting northern tax

allowances for northern workers. There was no mention whatsoever, in

this House or by the Minister of Finance, of protection of northern

workers from this punitive Ottawa budget.

In conclusion,

we've seen one of the longest throne speeches in the province. We've

seen an amendment presented by the New Democratic Party concerning full

employment opportunities in this province. We've seen speeches made by

the government members that have been based on many of the themes and

thoughts against unions. We've also seen no mention whatsoever in the

Speech from the Throne on protecting teachers' collective bargaining in

this province. We've seen a Speech from the Throne that has denied

aboriginal title and many issues that I've touched on today. Finally,

we've seen the continuation of this government to allocate

[ Page 6667 ]

millions

and millions of dollars for monuments in Vancouver without any public

inquiry, public thought or public decision being made by residents

throughout this province concerning the use of their tax dollars on

monuments in Vancouver.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak against the amendment that is now before the House.

MR. LEA: Why?

MR. BRUMMET:

Well, the amendment implies condemnation of the government for lack of

economic development. It also condemns the government for failing to

provide employment opportunities. When we think and read about and know

what has been going on in this province over the last few years, I

don't think any possible amendment that this opposition could have come

up with could have been more wrong on all counts. Certainly we have had

economic development in the province. We have had employment

opportunities created, This province is moving ahead and has been

moving ahead for the last few years.

Let me give just a few

instances. Last year British Columbia, with 11 percent of Canada's

population, had 25 percent of all the new housing starts in Canada.

Despite all of the flack that the opposition is throwing at the housing

program and so on in this province, I think you'll find that our

housing starts will go up again this year and that the housing program

will work. It has proven itself over a period of time. We have been

attracting investment into the province. We have been showing good

government initiative. Things are happening in this province.

For

instance, we created 22 percent of the new jobs created in Canada last

year, with only 11 percent of the population. Capital investment

increased 28.5 percent. There is talk that in the throne speech no

mention is made of any economic development or employment

opportunities. I'd like to refer to the project in high technology that

has just been announced and is proceeding in Richmond, the CP Air and

BCDC joint venture on creating a plant for turbine engine repair. Those

people are investing some $54 million in bringing this about. I have to

assume that people like CP Air and other astute businessmen who have

been in business for many years have looked at the opportunities ahead

before they decide to put $54 million into this province.

The

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said that we talk about climate, and

he didn't think that that had anything to do with job creation. Well,

it's the climate in a province — the assurances of future development

and opportunities — that brings in investors that makes these people

come to British Columbia, put their money here and bring projects here

that will create the jobs. So we do create jobs.

That member

for Prince Rupert also pointed out that we are shipping our natural gas

to Japan for them to generate electricity, and here we are damming our

rivers. Well, if that member did a little bit more homework, I think he

would realize that flowing water is a renewable resource in this

province and can be put to good use. It can generate electricity a lot

cheaper than natural gas can. We need revenue brought into the province

as well. I wonder if that member for Prince Rupert knows that his

colleague from Skeena (Mr. Howard) has come out against liquefied

natural gas plants; he thinks they are dangerous. The fact that they

are used in other parts of the world and the technology is in place

doesn't impress him. The other reason he gave was that we do not have

enough natural gas to export. It's the old socialist philosophy of

leave it in the ground. It's not going to do an awful lot of good in

the ground 50 years from now when nobody else in this world has gas,

and new technology and hydrogen and all these other things have been

developed; then it can stay in the ground and it will never do this

province any good.

The criticism has been made that the

throne speech offers no services to people. If you just look at the

throne speech, there's mention in there of public transit. Somehow or

other, it seems to me that public transit is to move people more

efficiently, more economically and more expediently. That seems to me

to be for people. Not only that, the transit project is bringing

technology to British Columbia and it's bringing jobs to British

Columbia. It will create construction jobs as well as permanent jobs in

the future. If that isn't for people, then I don't know what is. We

have the advanced rapid transit; we have the commuter rail project. All

of these things are to serve people in this province.

The

throne speech refers to highway improvements and additions. The member

for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), who just spoke, takes one, perhaps,

typographical error out of the throne speech and makes a big deal out

of that — that they are going to pave the shoulders on gravel roads.

I'm sure that there is no intent. As a matter of fact, I would be

objecting if they start paving shoulders before they pave roads, But

that was the issue that he took. He can't see that the roads and the

improvements on the roads create jobs in this province, create

transportation routes which in turn serve the people of this province.

On other occasions he stood here and demanded more funding on

transportation systems, on highways. How well we can remember during

the Highways estimates earlier this year when member after member stood

up asking for more money, for more highways, for better roads in their

constituencies. Was that not for people, or was that for themselves? I

contend that the roads that we build, the improvements, the

transportation systems, are for the people of this province. They give

them better access, they give them better mobility and they create jobs.

The

throne speech makes reference to more hospitals and better services —

for instance, the Children's Hospital and services for seniors. Yes, we

do not have enough services for seniors, and we do not have enough

services for seniors in my own constituency. I am trying to get those

other services, but I am not naive enough to think that we can provide

all of these services without providing some way to pay for the

operation of those services, and not from the taxpayer's pocket. What

we need to do is create industry. We need to create means to generate

revenue, and if we can't do that it's a false illusion created over and

over again by this opposition: just build it and don't worry about it.

Well, if you can't operate it and two years down the road you have to

close the doors on something because you're broke, as they well found

out in their term in office.... If you can't operate the thing in

the future, it is a rather foolish investment to build it. So what this

government is doing is trying to move sensibly, practically,

pragmatically forward providing as many services as they possibly can

on a responsible financial basis. We have to carry on with that.

could go on, Mr. Speaker, with the things that are mentioned in the

throne speech: the cultural developments, the sports, the recreational

facilities, the programs that are being developed and so on. The member

for Atlin made a list of the things that weren't listed in the throne

speech. Mr.

[ Page 6668 ]

Speaker,

if this government listed in the throne speech all of the good things

it has done in this province and all of the good things it had planned,

it would take five days to read it. They talk about no job

opportunities, and no creation of jobs. What about the encouragement of

high technology, which is bringing in the jobs? I've referred to that.

What about the coal mining expansion in the southeast? Do you think

that would be happening under socialism? Do you think they'd be

attracting money into the province? Do you think the methanol plant at

Kitimat would be happening with the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)

against LNG.

MR. HOWARD: It absolutely would.

MR. BRUMMET:

With what? You're against any further gas companies. You'd run the oil

and gas companies out of the province if you could. How could you have

a methanol plant? When you get a chance to speak, Mr. Member for

Skeena, perhaps you'd stand up and deny that you're against the LNG

projects in this province.

We're talking about the upgrading

and modernization of our forest plants. A lot of that is happening, and

it's still going on despite the setback in the forest industry. The

northeast coal project: I hardly need to refer to all the jobs that are

being created there and will be created, and the revenue that will be

created from that to create services for the people of this province as

we go through the years. Most of the money there is being provided by

private-sector investment.

Mr. Brummet moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada