1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 25, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5425 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

School district budgets. Mr. Rose –– 5425

Mr. Nicolson

Lab technicians. Mrs. Dailly –– 5425

Mr. Rose

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 5426

Federal-provincial forestry agreement. Mr. Howard –– 5427

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Gardom, –– 5427

Mr. Lea –– 5430

Mr. Reynolds –– 5433

Mr. Blencoe –– 5438

Mrs, Johnston –– 5441

Mr. Hanson –– 5443

Mr. D'Arcy –– 5445

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5447

Division –– 5449

MONDAY, MARCH 25, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I gather a brace of the fourth

estate are celebrating their natal days today, so I say double happy

returns to Mr. Ian Jessop and Mr. Hubie Beyer.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the members of the House

would like to join me in congratulating in the usual way four fine

young women from North Vancouver, Linda Moore, Lindsay Sparkes, Debbie

Jones and Laurie Carney, who over the weekend won the world ladies'

curling championship. They've been fantastic ambassadors for Canada and

British Columbia abroad. I'm sure many of us were proud to see the

British Columbia flag showing on television worldwide on Saturday night.

MR. STRACHAN: I guess this announcement of mine rather pales

in light of what my colleague has just said, but I would like the House

to recognize and acknowledge a significant Prince George athlete, Mr.

Neil Marshall, who won a bronze medal at the North American indoor

speedskating championships held this weekend in St. Louis, Missouri.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today are three ladies from

my constituency: Iras Gartrell, Carrie Roadhouse and Marty Lundy. I'd

ask you to bid these ladies welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery are Doreen and

Clive Paul, two people who resided for a long time in Nelson and now

reside in the Victoria area. Our loss is Victoria's gain.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGETS

MR. ROSE: I wonder if I might direct a question to the

Minister of Education. I understand that last week the minister issued

yet another ultimatum and deadline to some 30 school districts who

refused to be compliant in the face of further government curbs. Does

the minister believe that more ultimatums and deadlines will solve the

education problems in British Columbia?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to note that

over half the school districts in British Columbia were able to deliver

compliance budgets. The reason for sending out the letter was to remind

the districts that they were to submit a compliance budget by the 15th.

If they did not do so, they were sent a letter which was exactly the

same as the one which went out to a few school districts for the

transitional budget, which occurred some weeks ago. I am sure that

school districts will do what they can to comply.

MR. ROSE: I think it's even more interesting, Mr. Speaker, that some 30 boards have decided to defy the minister. It's unprecedented.

The minister has apparently decided to set up a three member budget review advisory

team — or BRAT, as it's known — as a final solution to the educational problems.

Since the minister already has the power under the act to vary any school budget,

what does the minister hope to achieve educationally by sending these "hit"

teams off to harass certain districts?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of setting up the

team was to report back to me if any alternatives were possible to

permit a school district to submit a budget which complies with the

amount allocated. If there is some assistance that can be offered, I

think both the school district and the ministry will profit. The

accusation of a hit team is not true at all. All we're doing is asking

for information, and to provide to me alternatives that can be

implemented for the purposes of bringing in a compliance budget.

MR. ROSE: Will the minister confirm that he has appointed his

neighbour, Mr. Mac Carpenter, to the three member review panel, despite

Mr. Carpenter's dismissal as secretary-treasurer of School District 57

in October 1980?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Some very interesting comments from the front benches over here; everybody's a neighbour in the north.

The appointment of Mr. Carpenter, together with Mr. Stables and Mr.

Sernmens, all of whom have records of achievement within their areas of

expertise.... The fact that Mr. Carpenter had a parting of the ways

with School District 57 is beside the point. The fact that Mr.

Carpenter was at one time a neighbour of mine is, I think, totally

immaterial. I'm aware that he worked extraordinarily hard on behalf of

the district for a long time. In fact, when he left the district, there

was a lawsuit, and as I recall, he received a substantial award for

unlawful dismissal. I cannot be certain of the amount.

MR. NICOLSON: Were you acting for the board?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, at the time this occurred, it seems to me I was an MLA.

MR. ROSE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Carpenter

was dismissed following a management consultant study which found a

number of things: central accountant systems lacking, shocking lack of

accounting information, payroll system lacked rudimentary controls,

reputation for arrogance, intractability and favouritism in dealing

with district staff. It sounds like a wonderful recommendation for the

BRAT team. What else qualifies Mr. Carpenter to tell other districts

how to run their affairs?

[2:15]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the team is

not to tell the districts how to run their affairs. The purpose of the

team is to report back to me any alternative proposals that they might

be able to uncover for the purposes of bringing in compliance budgets.

I don't really think there is anything unreasonable about that.

LAB TECHNICIANS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. With reference to the shortage of medical

[ Page 5426 ]

lab training spaces for the medical lab students in

the hospitals, could the minister tell us if any progress has been made

by his ministry to find the spaces for these students?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Much as I really would rather not, it's really a Ministry of Education problem at the moment.

The number of positions available for the graduate students has not

changed much over the past few years. What has happened, however, is

that in the education system the number of those entering the program

has increased considerably. There was not an obligation on behalf of

the hospitals of British Columbia to provide those positions for all

who may be taking the course and graduating.

I believe the Ministry of Education has been reviewing this matter,

because it certainly has been brought to their attention over the past

period of time, but there has been no resolution to that. There are

apparently more students entering that program than there are positions

available.

MR. ROSE: Since the Minister of Health has raised the name of

the Minister of Education — in vain, perhaps — I would like to direct a

supplementary to the minister. The government professes to be concerned

about jobs. If so, why has the Minister of Education closed first-year

lab tech courses at BCIT, Nanaimo, Prince George, Cariboo, and Camosun

College — since B.C. last year imported 149 lab technologists?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a specific answer to the question which has been raised. That

part I will take on notice.

With respect to the point raised earlier about the concern for

accommodating technicians, that matter is the subject of a meeting

which I will be having at 3 o'clock today to attempt to seek a

resolution. I will take the first part of the question on notice. You

must remember.... I can't speak after taking it as notice, is that

correct, Mr. Speaker?

The point is that on many of those courses the decision has been

made by the board of directors of each of the boards. With respect to

the matter of BCIT, I'll certainly make an inquiry on behalf of the

member.

MR. ROSE: A supplementary on the same subject, Mr. Speaker.

Did the minister order lab tech courses to be cut from three to two

years without notifying the college boards he mentioned in his last

sentence, and if so, whose professional advice was used to cut these

courses by one-third?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. DAILLY: Another question to the Minister of Health. The

Minister of Health is responsible for hospitals, and my understanding

is that the shortage of spaces in hospitals is creating a problem. So

once again I ask the minister: are you doing something about the

shortage of spaces in the hospitals for those students who are waiting

to get into them now?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, we will not require the hospitals to

create positions to correspond with the number of graduates, unless the hospitals

require these people for their own reasons rather than simply to accommodate

numbers, whatever those numbers may be. They will hire those they require to

function in the hospital. It may not necessarily correspond to the numbers being

produced through the courses.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: In view of the absence of the Premier, the

Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Rogers), I have a question for the parliamentary secretary

for Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It was last Friday that I

asked the Minister of International Trade and Investment what 3 percent

of $10 was and he indicated he was going to get a report from his

department on the subject. Since the minister thought it was three

cents — that indicates our problems in northeast coal completely — I

would ask the parliamentary secretary, in her new position, if she

could advise us what 3 percent of $10 is?

I would further note, Mr. Speaker, that analyst Geoffrey Carter....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as the

alternate Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, I will

be pleased to take that question on notice, and hopefully at his

convenience the minister will bring back the reply.

MR. WILLIAMS: Two people on the payroll and no answers.

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to either party. The analyst Geoffrey

Carter, of Midland Doherty in Toronto, said on Friday last, "Whenever I

look at the Quintette numbers, I nearly die," and that the only answer

with northeast coal is further government subsidies. Could either of

these people who are on the payroll, in terms of answering questions

with respect to these issues, comment in terms of meetings between

Quintette or others with respect to additional government subsidies

beyond the $700 million we've already spent?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, is a supplementary in order following a question that has been taken on notice?

MR. SPEAKER: Only if it's a new question, hon. member. I believe it was indicated that it was a new question.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: He did ask for a supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: Good point. If it's a new question, hon. member, proceed.

MR. WILLIAMS: A further question, Mr. Speaker, to the acting minister. Can he advise us what 3 percent of $10 is?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, again, I will be very

pleased.... I'm sure that a great deal of research and study has gone

into preparing this question, and it's only fair that he get a complete

answer. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to take this

question on notice. Whenever the minister returns, I'm sure that he

will be very pleased to bring you back a very full and complete answer.

[ Page

5427 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: A question to the parliamentary secretary. With respect

to the fact that the Quintette mine is the wrong hole, as the Minister of International

Trade indicated, can the parliamentary secretary advise us of the technical

work done by the various senior geologists in the mining department on this

question, and the matter of the intensity of drilling that he deemed to be necessary

prior to expending this great deal of money?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it seems abundantly clear that the

question would be better placed on the order paper, as it does require

a considerable amount of detail.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FORESTRY AGREEMENT

MR. HOWARD: You just saved the parliamentary secretary an

embarrassment, Mr. Speaker. I won't risk heading a question in that

direction, because in the absence of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland), I'm sure we're going to get a precise, clear, positive

"yes" answer from the backup minister.

Can I ask the acting Minister of Forests: when are we going to sign

the federal-provincial agreement on silvicultural matters? Could the

acting minister answer that?

HON. MR. SMITH: I would be pleased to answer the question, and indicate that the answer is: soon.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. GARDOM: This is the first time during this

parliament that I've had the pleasure of making a few observations. We

have a new Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), and I wish to

congratulate him. I think Canadians right across the country are very

pleased with results over the past week — namely, the action that was

taken by the Prime Minister and the President of the United States

concerning acid rain. Our colleagues south of the line have to be

continuously impressed that Canadians are very serious about this,

because not to attempt to bring it into check would be nothing less

than folly in the long run. We all know what has happened in other

jurisdictions. I gather that in Bavaria, for example, there are whole

valleys where trees are bare and dying. In Sweden the fish loss in

lakes is one of the most serious in the world. We certainly know that

our Minister of Environment will take this acid rain problem very

seriously and that he will keep the British Columbia perspective front

and centre on this — and, indeed, on all environmental issues.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I also congratulate and wish well our new Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Segarty). He's a communicator bar none; he knows his stuff and can

articulate it. He's a very fair-minded person; but I'd like to say to

management, and to labour as well: you won't find him to be any kind of

pussycat. You respect him and he will respect you.

Then, of course, there are the new roles for the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and of International Trade and Investment

(Hon. Mr. Phillips). I similarly congratulate them and wish them both well;

I'm darned sure they will continue to promote and sell British Columbia

like you wouldn't believe. I think we will find the results truly exciting,

and I quite frankly can't wait to see them.

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to compliment the leader of the

official opposition (Mr. Skelly); he's really shuffled the deck with

his new three-piece-suit approach. Why, even the mud line has mellowed

into a bunch of Shirley Temples and, perhaps for a different reason,

one Orphan Andy. Sorry that I missed the talk of the big bear, my good

friend the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), but I gather that he

really put that old retreaded Fabianist and perhaps the patron saint of

the Nanaimo friendship society — or vice versa — in his place.

Atlin took on the press as well, and that seems to be high fashion

these days. Why, some of them have even hopped into the sanctum

sanctorum, the holy water of self-appraisal, and I think everyone will

agree that there are some mighty fertile opportunities there. Look at

their press council considering matters behind closed doors, yet how

many times have we heard their sunshine speeches about the College of

Physicians and Surgeons or other professional organizations? As our

good friend the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) said last week, at one time the media actually used to sit in

the press gallery. It's true. They were there; you could see them. But

now, after Orders of the Day comes that thundering noise like Merrill

Lynch bulls in full stampede as the question period dropouts hit the

stairs. Mr. Speaker, I would strongly recommend that you have a

first-aid officer at the bottom step; it's really a wonder that nobody

has been hurt to this point.

[2:30]

Furthermore, in days of yore Victoria and Vancouver had two good

newspapers, not one and a cut-line factory, as is the case now. But in

speaking to the budget, I'd say it's not the poor underpaid,

overworked, underprivileged, sometimes undernourished

where-the-rubber-hits-the-pavement scribes that the public is

complaining about; it's some of the policies of some of their bosses,

who appear to want editorialized and unbalanced and constantly critical

reporting of just about everything, save and except a birth notice,

because they say it sells.

I think the press in our country could take a good lesson from that new paper in the United States, U.S.A. Today . It's certainly no Wall Street Journal , New York Times or Los Angeles Times .

It's a national newspaper and perhaps very traveler-oriented, but it

certainly does sell. I understand that it moved from a circulation of

zero in about September 1982, to 1.3 million today, and with a balanced

columnist policy. You see the pros and the cons. They're very well

written and give readers the opportunity to consider both sides of the

issue, and lets them make the judgment calls themselves.

Mr. Speaker, without qualification I support the budget. It's a good

budget, and certainly the most appropriate one that our Minister of

Finance can produce at this time. Its philosophy is to provide

incentives to fire the engines of the private sector and instill

confidence to develop economic growth, in order to secure the necessary

revenues to permit government to pay for the multitude of services that

society needs or wants, or has been conditioned to expect from the

public purse. As Prime Minister Mulroney well stated this weekend,

there has to be a balance. One can't look at any of this in

[ Page 5428 ]

isolation. There are society's needs and wants, and

the pressures of the never-ending and no doubt well-motivated

self-interest groups.

Mr. Speaker, is a doctor...? I am one of the strongest supporters of

the medical profession, but is a doctor, who save and except royalty is

the highest publicly paid individual in the history of the world, a

better stamper-out of disease or healer of the sick because the public

purse might pay him $350,000 a year, as opposed to $100,000, along with

a free garage, free tools and parts, and manifestly subsidized learning

thrown in in each case? Does a municipal manager better manage at

$100,000 instead of three-quarters of that? Does a school supervisor or

a university president or faculty dean do a better job for the kids or

increase productivity because he gets a publicly paid return of about

five times the average national earnings, and usually with raises that

would make even a Vegas Fargo dealer blush? How much of that really

gets to where the rubber hits the pavement — the public, the consumer?

We have all heard from some medical persons that the system is

dying. We have heard from some teachers that the education system is

dying. We've heard from some academics that the universities are at

death's door. That's absolute humbug, Mr. Speaker. Maybe these

sky-fallers should look at themselves. Maybe they should say how they

think the public pie should be cut between these three sectors, or how

much they want to saddle the unborn with. Maybe the taxpayers — and

they're taxpayers too — should have a greater and more participatory

function in determining those public salaries and public benefits. And

sure, for MLAs and parliamentarians and senators as well. But these

doom-and-gloomers cannot have it both ways, and as long as this

administration is trustee to the B.C. taxpayer, hopefully they

shouldn't and they won't.

Mr. Speaker, this budget doesn't — indeed, regretfully cannot —

provide the cardinal remedy which in my view would make this province,

and indeed all of Canada, take off; a route that would decrease the

cost of consumer goods and increase everyone's wherewithal and

disposable income, that would increase trade and create a capital

inflow to provide jobs, success and prosperity like you wouldn't

believe. It comes as no surprise to old-timers in this House that I'm

once again talking about one-on-one, across-the-board free trade with

the United States, and tomorrow morning couldn't be soon enough for me.

It takes two to tango, and at last the music is getting better.

There were mighty sweet sounds in September of last year when the

United States trade representative William Brock said: "We would be

willing to do anything the Canadian government would like to do at the

pace they would like to do it." Now if that isn't an open sesame, what

is?

Next was the Shamrock Summit last week. The headlines envisaged a

blockbuster free trade pact. It didn't quite get to that, but the St.

Patrick serenade was loud and clear. "The only fair trade is free

trade," said Mr. Brock. "A pledge of freer trade," said the two

leaders. And I would say go the whole way, coach. There's nothing freer

than free and anything less would probably contravene GATT.

Both countries — and I'm glad to see this — have mandated their

representatives six months for a detailed study and a report back. I

think the Canadian public have got to know that we're supporting them.

I regret indeed to hear that Mr. Brock has received a new posting, but

I certainly hope that the President of the United States secures

another individual with his capacities, his drive and his interests in

this issue to take on the task for that country.

Six months from today — September 17, 1985 — could become one of the

most remarkable and significant dates in our country since

Confederation. This is no time for the faint of heart, and it's about

time those central Canada hot-housers didn't always have their own way,

as they have had since Confederation. We need a demonstration of

boldness, courage and determination. These kinds of opportunities don't

spring up every day, and we've got to grasp them. At long last, let's

disregard the shrill of the so-called economic nationalists — but in

real life protectionists — tariff barrierites and hot-house state- and

consumer-subsidized, inefficient and uncompetitive on each side of the

border. What I'm talking about this afternoon is in the interests of

each and every Canadian consumer from Cowichan to Corner Brook.

Anything less in the short run lacks foresight; anything less in the

long run is just plain bad economics.

The conclusion is inescapable: the surest, least complicated and

most friendly route to our future prosperity in our country and in all

of our provinces has to be next door — with our already very connected

economy — to a huge free market of goods, services and capital. Our

greatest need is for a big, dependable, easily accessed and — from a

world perspective — generally predictable market. It seems, from the

American point of view, to be there for the asking.

So I say we should get that first, build up our strength, and then

have that followed by discussions and negotiations to remove trade

barriers bilaterally with Europe and Japan and the fast-growing, newly

industrialized countries. We have an absolutely remarkable opportunity

at our fingertips, probably in a significant fashion, for the first

time in Canadian history. It's very peculiar to me that that once very

proud, innovative and reform-seeking Liberal Party of Canada isn't

behind the Prime Minister of Canada 110 percent in this issue. They

should be. It's time for support and not sour grapes, and I'd say to

the Prime Minister — as I'm sure all Canadian citizens would say: go

for it as soon as you can.

Now I'd like to say a few words about the Canadian Senate. If the

Senate continues as it is with its present powers and its preposterous

method of selection, its members' tenure, its lack of fair regional

representation and, in many cases, such a dismal record for attendance,

then I'd say that few people in Canada would suffer any pangs of

anguish if its tent were folded up and it faded away. But it can be

effective; it can perform a function. An Upper House can do a job, and

an Upper House can properly serve the country. But the one that we have

today is not on that track, and it has to be put on a proper track.

Ever since 1975 this administration has vigorously advocated the

reform of our central institutions, in order to see that the senate and

the major Canadian boards and commissions better reflect representation

from and in the interests and aspirations of all parts of the country.

When our proposals were articulated at the first ministers' conference

way back in October 1978, an almost embarrassing paucity of support

developed. But slowly the British Columbia cause started to secure

recognition, and along lines that were strikingly similar to that which

we initially proposed — for example, the Pepin-Robarts task force

report, Claude Ryan's Beige Paper, the Canadian bar, the studies of the

Canada West Foundation and, most recently, even Alberta.

MR. WILLIAMS: W.A.C. Bennett.

[ Page 5429 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Indeed, W.A.C. Bennett had some very profound and good ideas on that, Mr. Member. You're completely correct.

I'd say that one of our most flourishing cottage industries now is

the senate reform, with just about everybody having a go at it but the

B.C. Vegetable Marketing Commission. There are about 18 models now on

the table, with the report of the MacDonald commission still on the

horizon. I'm making this point because Canadians today are far more

concerned with — and indeed they should be — the far more pressing

issues of the economy, jobs, inflation, taxation, and the cost and

proliferation of government. They don't want, and the Senate does not

need, any more studies. There has already been enough time and money

spent on it, and there's absolutely no way, in my view, Mr. Speaker,

why all of that brain-and-dollar drain should be lost. It should not

become love's labours lost, and all at taxpayers' expense. What

Canadians want and Canada deserves is action. We have to have more

steam at the engine and less at the caboose, and most of all a

manifestation of political will.

Look at something that could be achievable today, could be

realizable, and would be in the interests of and of assistance to

Canadians, not just to their governments. We're beginning to see a

slight ingredient of that political will developing, and it's a result

of the Senate holding up the money bill not too long ago.

The Senate cannot take on the job, Mr. Speaker, of attempting to

hijack the House of Commons, but curing that alone is not enough. I'd

like to see the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premiers sit down and

develop a short five- or six-point agenda, set the wheels in motion,

have their ministers meet and develop amendments, within a prescribed

and short time-frame propose resolutions, and then get them in front of

Parliament and in front of the provincial legislatures and get them

passed.

I would like to suggest seven basic principles. Firstly, the major

purpose of a reformed Upper House should be to bring to bear regional

and provincial concerns in the national decision-making process.

Secondly, an Upper House should have the capacity to address certain

crucial federal-provincial issues of particular concern to the

provinces, and with direct provincial input: for example, the making of

appointments to major boards and commissions — the provinces have to

have some hand on those national levers of power and decision; the use

of the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction so as

not to distort provincial priorities or interfere with provincial

programs; more input into the passing of federal laws to be

administered by the provinces, the Criminal Code and the Young

Offenders Act, all of which can produce horrific burdens on provincial

taxpayers; the use of the declaratory power; and the use of the

emergency power.

Thirdly, an Upper House's function should continue as a chamber of

sober second thought over proposed federal legislation, and on occasion

it has performed well in this regard. But it should not become a

confidence body with the power to defeat a national government.

Dealing with selection, the selection of senators solely and only by

federal appointment has got to end. That's felt nationally, Mr.

Speaker. The public say that has got to end. There are options. One

would be to permit election. Another would be to allow each level of

government to select half. Still another would be to allow each of the

11 governments to choose themselves how they would secure

representation.

Some might choose to appoint, some might choose to elect, and others

might well choose a combination. But Canadians across Canada are fed up

with this being a patronage palace, whoever the Prime Minister is who

puts them there. Also, there has to be provided a full capacity for

turnover — no lifetime tenure, because what that has done has elevated

fully paid truancy on the part of some of them to a level of

unacceptability unparalleled in most western democracies.

[2:45]

The seats should be redistributed so that the Upper House can properly act

as a counterbalance to the lower House's representation by population, with

the smaller provinces and those more geographically remote from Ottawa being

entitled to relatively heavy representation. I'm not suggesting more seats;

I'm suggesting less seats. Right now everything labours in favour of central

Canada — 48 seats are owned by central Canada and six by British Columbia. It's

preposterous. It's out of sync with the evolution of contemporary Canada,

and it defeats one of the historic reasons why the Senate was formed — for the

protection and articulation of regional interests. Why there is any need for

24-seat regional interest protection for Ontario today, when Ottawa is for all

practical purposes downtown Ontario, is beyond me. The concept of the Senate

Upper House is good in theory, but it's rotten in practice, and it doesn't

recognize the evolution of our country insofar as representation is concerned.

Lastly, and I'd say that this is the sine qua non, any kind of Upper

House reform has to develop from that manifestation of political will.

It has not been present in our country. There is a glimmer of it

happening now, as I mentioned. But it can't start at the bottom. That's

been tried, and it has not worked. It has got to start at the top.

There are 11 people in the country today who could establish that

agenda: the Prime Minister and the Premiers.

Maybe it should be a two-step process. But the first step should not

be just tinkering — no way. Canadians are entitled to more than that.

They should go to the numbers, go to the method of appointment, and

certainly provide some type of suspensive as opposed to mandatory veto.

An absolute veto, as is the case today, really does mock parliament,

whether it is used or not. There are lots of precedents for a 30-day

suspensive veto for money bills. There is a parallel provision in the

House of Lords in the U.K., and that would appear to be reasonable. I'd

say a longer period of time, so the Upper House is effectively equipped

to do the job; and a longer period of time to do that with other

legislation — 90 days, or even 180 days. There's good precedent for a

180-day suspensive veto; that was brought in for constitutional

amendment when our constitution was being patriated.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few minutes left. I'd just like to make a few

observations about marketing boards, because I know my colleagues would

be very distressed if I didn't. These are my personal points of view.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, it gets better every year. My remarks

today are pretty heavily consumer-oriented, and I'm not making any

apologies for that. I'd like to see more breaks for them, greater

freedom of choice, a better selection and, if they can find it, perhaps

an increased wine selection. If the imports can do better, let the

consumer have the break in that. If somebody wants to get involved in

loss-leader liquor sales, just let them do it. Why our British

[ Page 5430 ]

Columbia consumers should not be able to buy the

best fruit, vegetables, milk, oysters, turkeys and cranberries whenever

and from whomever they want to is beyond me. I say get rid of those

blankety-blank marketing boards.

This is absolutely no reflection whatsoever on my genial, kind,

considerate, cordial, hard-working, dedicated, happily married,

effective and efficient Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder),

who has his role to play, his job to do and his constituency to

protect. From my perspective, he's doing just too darned well on this

issue. I love him dearly and I wish him no ill, but only the best. But

I can certainly tell you that if I ever have my personal druthers, all

of these marketing boards in the province of British Columbia would

face the new reality. I don't think there's any need for people to get

nervous about me making these kinds of statements. The hon.

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) can talk about provincial capital

punishment with a degree of impunity, so conceivably I'm entitled to

make a little reference to these marketing boards.

I'd just like to read quickly to you, before I conclude, Mr.

Speaker, something from the Fraser Institute that I think you will

agree with. This was done under the hand of Sally Pipes and Michael

Walker. It's entitled Tax Facts 4

and was published in the early summer of last year. They make two

points — and it will take me about two minutes to quote these points.

The first one essentially buttresses what I was saying about free trade

with our good neighbours to the south. They say this:

"In November 1976 the federal government imposed a

quota on imported clothing and textiles. Its purpose was to limit the

importation of inexpensive clothing and textiles and so protect

Canadian markets for Canadian clothing and textile manufacturers. The

difference between the price for clothing that would have prevailed in

the absence of the quota and the price that actually prevails is a tax

on the consumer. Proceeds from this tax go directly to producers and

are, in effect, a producer subsidy. There is no difference in principle

between this sort of tax and other hidden taxes...."

And then they refer to a book:

"Free Trade Between the United States and Canada have estimated

that the total amount of tax levied in the form of tariff protection or other

barriers to international competition may be as high as 10.5 percent of Canada's

gross national product. Currently this amounts to a tax of some $40 billion."

This is what the Fraser Institute says about marketing boards, and I

know that you, Mr. Speaker, are going to be particularly interested in

this most worthwhile and correct quotation:

"At present there are some 177 farm products cartels

in Canada. These cartels or marketing boards generally have the effect

of suppressing competition in the production of the cartelized product,

and they consequently cause the price of the product to be higher than

it otherwise would have been. As in the case of clothing and textiles,

the amount by which the marketing board price exceeds the price that

would prevail in its absence — that is, in the market — is a tax on the

consumer. Accordingly, marketing boards ought to be viewed as a device

for transferring money from consumers to producers. And this transfer

is equivalent to a tax on consumers, the proceeds of which are given to

producers."

Mr. Speaker, with the quotas being traded like taxi licences and,

I'd say, reflecting little or nothing re land use or the value of

stock and equipment, I'd have to say to the supporters of the

compulsory marketing board system — and it is indeed fortunate that the

beef cattle crowd are not among those supporters — that if these

production and sales regulators are so all-fired good, if this system

is so all-fired good, why don't they prove it and permit it to become

voluntary as opposed to compulsory?

It's been a great pleasure to say a few words here this afternoon,

Mr. Speaker, and I certainly thank the House for its rapt attention.

MR. LEA: I listened to the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations with.... . I don't know if it was with bated breath or with

bait on my breath, but rapt attention. I think what we should do is

give the Canadian Senate a would-they-be-missed test. If Parliament met

in the middle of the night and told no one they were meeting, and they

wiped out the Senate, and if no one in this country knew over the first

two year period that they'd actually done it, maybe that would be the

test. Would anybody miss them? Would we know they'd gone? I doubt

whether there would be a Canadian who would know that the Senate had

gone except the senators themselves, either those who are still there

or those who were pensioned off. They'd be the only people who would

miss it.

AN HON. MEMBER: They wouldn't know either.

MR. LEA: Maybe they wouldn't know.

Mr. Speaker, I said when I was speaking to the amendment to the

budget that I would be supporting the budget with some pretty serious

reservations. It's almost like the government is half right. The

government has said that we have to get the economy going, but I don't

find anybody in the province who doesn't say that. The official

opposition says it; all political parties say it. I imagine you could

walk out onto the street and talk to the unemployed, those who are

working and those who are in business, and everybody would say: "Yes,

we have to get the economy going."

But what does that mean? I would say that probably if we looked

behind that statement we'd be talking about the creation of new wealth.

Mr. Speaker, up until a few short years ago, the creation of wealth was

synonymous with the creation of jobs. So when we talked about getting

the economy going in the 1930s, the 1940s or the 1950s, we were talking

about creating more wealth, which in turn would create more jobs.

The government says that they would like this budget that they've

brought in to get the economy going; in other words, to create more

wealth. I don't think anybody would disagree with that thrust — maybe

not the way they're doing it, but the thrust of getting the economy

going to create more wealth. But, Mr. Speaker, times have changed.

Whereas a few short years ago the creation of new wealth at the same

time created new jobs.... Today it still would, but not to the same

ratio that it would have a few years ago.

New wealth creation in our economy today does not have as part of it

the creation of jobs to any large degree. The creation of new wealth in

our economy is, for all intents and purposes, a procedure that would

have jobless wealth creation. We all talk about new technologies and

these new technologies being applied to every facet of our economic life

[ Page 5431 ]

and social life. But we know that to put a pulp

mill in today with new technology, and to have the same output of

material, would create fewer jobs in a pulp mill today than a pulp mill

that was put in 30 years ago. That new machinery, that new equipment,

the microchip, the new saws — all of that new technology can be run

with fewer people to create more wealth and more output.

So where does that leave us? If the government's program under the

budget is successful, and I don't think there's anybody that hopes that

it isn't.... We may not think it will be, but everybody hopes that the

creation of new wealth is a successful project. The government, though,

says: "Let's create this new wealth. Let's get the economy going,

because we want to create jobs." That's where, to a large degree, I

part company with the government.

If they are indeed successful in creating new wealth, they will in

many instances be creating new unemployment, because if we go into our

industries and apply the new technology that's available in retooling,

with new capital goods, we are in effect going for higher productivity.

The very term "higher productivity," with new technology, means fewer

jobs to produce the same amount of goods or more goods. We see it in

the forest industry, as I said the other day. MacMillan Bloedel, in

1984, had a larger output of goods than they had in 1979, and they did

it with 40 percent fewer employees. Now that should give us pause.

[3:00]

There are a number of things that are creating this new higher

productivity in our forest industry. One is new technology. The other

is that the people who are working there are frightened out of their

minds that they're going to lose their jobs, and I think we have to

admit that the people in the plants — and I've talked to them — are

working harder than they did a few years ago. They are actually putting

in more effort, because they are very afraid that they could lose that

job and there's no new job to go to. We have new technology, workers

applying themselves more diligently and with more effort, and we have

higher productivity, therefore higher unemployment. And it's increasing

all the time. If this budget is successful, to a large degree in the

aggregate sense we will have more unemployment, not less.

Now that's not necessarily bad, if we're willing to deal with the

reality of that problem. If new technology and new capital goods are

going to create new wealth with fewer people, then it seems to me that

what the government has failed to grasp is that as a province we must

talk about a new method of redistribution of wealth. It's a must,

because if machines are more and more going to produce things —

commodities — then we must redistribute wealth to those who are not

going to be working in the production of commodities any longer, so

that there's somebody there to purchase the products coming from the

machines.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting that we take this new wealth

and say, okay, here's a formula; let's divide it up and give it to all

the people who aren't working and give them the purchasing power to buy

the goods. I don't think a society that pays people to be idle can be

the healthy society that we want. People must contribute to the society

they live in. What we're talking about is this: how, in the future, are

those people going to contribute to society, and what are they going to

take out of society in terms of the redistribution of the wealth

created?

As new technology is applied more and more, we as a society must

face the problem of redistribution of wealth. I don't say that in an

ideological sense; I say it in a practical sense. We have to redefine

the redistribution of wealth. At the same time we have to redefine

work, and what it means to work in a society. If machines are going to

be producing many of the commodities, then what kind of work are the

citizens going to do that is worthwhile in the community, is fulfilling

to the individual, and also helps to create a different kind of wealth

— a richer, fuller, cultural society?

We're going to have to look at a number of areas. We're going to

have to look at work-sharing. In a redefinition of work, we're going to

have to look at what it means: what sort of contribution to society is

going to be considered work.

At the same time that we're considering the redistribution of

wealth, we must examine the redistribution of work, redefine work, and

after having done both of those, or in conjunction with those, we have

to redefine and redistribute the decision-making process. In other

words, we have to redistribute power within our society. If we're going

to survive, we must have a decentralized society, not only in

government services but in our economy. Because in this new, tough,

competitive world that we're going into with the rapid change that is

with us and increasing all the time, we must have smaller economic

units that contain the efficiency and flexibility of small and are able

to deal with rapid change because they are smaller, flexible economic

units. If we don't go that route we are going to be left with an

outmoded, impotent industrial complex that won't deal with the new

world that we're going into.

Mr. Speaker, much of that new economy, in my opinion, is going to

come from the small business person. It's going to come from the

creativity of the entrepreneurs in our society, not only as people who

get into business for themselves, but as cooperatives. We have to talk

about community tree farm licences. We have to talk about small units

that are controlled at the local level, either by local groups or by

local business people taking a risk. But it's very difficult for

business people in this province to get the capital needed to put a

good idea into practice and reach fruition.

I'd like to spend a couple of moments on the Canadian banking

system. In our system of banking, if you go in to get a loan, it

doesn't necessarily have to be a sound business venture. You don't have

to prove to the bank that you have a good idea, that you have proper

management and proper marketing. All you have to do is prove that you

have ten times the amount of collateral you need to get the loan. We

have to have a banking system where an entrepreneur or a cooperative

can walk into that bank or lending institution with a good idea, a

sound business proposition, a good management proposal and a good

marketing proposal and get a loan at reasonable interest. What have our

banks done? They have taken the money of Canadians and said: "We would

rather risk this money by lending the money to Brazil, Argentina,

Poland and Mexico as opposed to taking a risk in the Canadian public."

Whose fault is that? We know very well that the banking system is going

to do what it's always done, because let's look at the structure. Why

should the banks lend money to the small business community? When you

take a look at the directors of the banks you find out that they've

always loaned the money to the companies they work for or represent —

the large corporations.

[ Page 5432 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEA: And some senators in this country. That's what this

banking community has done. But don't blame the banks. They are going

to do do whatever suits their vested interest and the directors'. But,

boy, we can take a look at the federal government of today, the federal

government of yesterday and the federal government before that, and

say: you have let Canadians down because you have allowed a financial

institution in this country that does not serve the citizens of this

country, whether it's consumers, citizens going for mortgages, or small

business people going to the bank to get money for an idea. The banking

system and the financial institutions in this country have let us down

sadly, but the responsibility must lie with the federal governments.

They have the power to control those financial institutions, and they

have not done it.

We can only turn that around by making sure that federal politicians

go to Ottawa dedicated to changing the financial institutions to serve

the citizens and the economy of this country and not themselves. Every

candidate should be questioned. Mr. Speaker, don't you find it more

than passing strange that when we see a first ministers' conference or

a finance ministers' conference, with the representative of B.C. —

either the Premier or the Minister of Finance or the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations — we don't see these issues on the table? I

noticed the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

applauding when I talked about the facilities not offered through the

banking system. When is the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

going to take this to the national stage and put it on the line on

behalf of the citizens of this province and the rest of the citizens in

this country?

I believe that more than at any other time in the history of Canada

our future relies on releasing the creativity of our citizens to deal

with the changes that are coming down on us, one after the other, and

getting more rapid every day. That creativity must be capitalized on if

we are going to allow those entrepreneurs, cooperatives and

community-based enterprises to get a chance to create new wealth. They

have to be freed, and they can only be free when we supply them with

the capital that's needed. We have to look at innovative ways of doing

that.

Also, as we go into the machines' creating more and more of the wealth,

we are going to have to examine another aspect of our economy. Up until now

there have been earnings from capital goods and earnings from labour. We are

going to have to examine in our society how we move individuals into getting

earnings from capital goods. The ownership has to change. The citizens of this

province and of this country must start to become the owners of capital goods,

so that they are reliant not only on wages but on some of the earnings from

the capital that's invested in our country. We must do that, because if

we don't then the only way we're going to redistribute wealth is through

government: taxing new productivity, bringing it into government and spending

the money back out there to create jobs in the service industry. I don't

think it's the most efficient way to do it. The most efficient way to do

it is to allow citizens to become owners of their own economy. You know, there

are many people around in society today, here in British Columbia, in Canada

as a whole and in the world who have some pretty innovative, exciting ideas

of how we could do it. We can try some experiments right here in our own province.

I know that the citizens in our province — and I'll say this: more in the

rural areas of our province — are willing and able to take on the responsibility

of trying some new experiments. They want to do it. They have ideas, they have

drive and they have the desire. What they lack is financial institutions and

government truly being partners in those new experiments.

We have to examine redistribution of wealth, redistribution of work

and a redefinition of work. Redistribution of power and a redefinition

of the decision-making process in society — those are the areas that we

have to re-examine with fresh eyes, with fresh ideas and with new

energy if we are going to go into a new economy that will be

competitive and allow our citizens to be part of it. We have to do it.

This budget does not address those issues. This budget only

addresses the creation of wealth. I think they're going about it

incorrectly, but it's the government's plan. Even the Prime Minister of

this country, Mr. Mulroney, before bringing in his budget, sat down

with labour, business and other special interest groups and talked to

them about the problems in a search for common ground to establish

common goals. I give Mr. Mulroney full marks for what has gone on in

this country in the last week. I think it's heading in the right

direction. But this government did not do it. This government sat down

with themselves and came up with their plan. Their idea of partnership

is that once they've come up with their plan, we either fall into line

or we're not good partners, we're not good citizens. That tells me that

there's a certain cynicism in the attitude of this government toward

our citizens: not having faith that there are ideas and renewed energy

out there. It signifies to me that the government, in their own way,

have lost hope.

[3:15]

Rhetoric is one thing and action is another. It's good that we're talking

in terms of partnership, but to talk about it isn't action. That action

had to take place before the plan was in place. It did not happen. And because

it did not happen, don't blame the trade union movement, the business community,

the municipalities or the federal government if this budget doesn't work,

because they had no

part in the planning. But maybe that's for the best

in the long run, because this government has to accept full responsibility for

this budget. And if it doesn't work they have to accept full accountability.

I do not want to see, down the road, fingers from this government

pointing at the municipalities and saying: "We gave you your chance and

you failed." I don't want to see this government pointing at the trade

union movement saying: "We gave you your chance and you failed." I

don't want to see this government pointing their finger at the business

community, and especially the small business community, and saying: "We

gave you your chance and you failed." Because they did not have a

chance for input. They did not have a chance to be a true partner. The

accountability lies with the government benches.

One member of the official opposition said: "Vote against it." I believe this government should be given every opportunity.

AN HON. MEMBER: To hang itself.

MR. LEA: I didn't say that. I don't want the government to be

able to point at me and say: "You were an impediment to our scheme

reaching success." I want that government to have full responsibility,

and I will even go further than just voting for the budget. I will tell

that government that any time

[ Page

5433 ]

they want me to help in any way as a member of this

Legislature, I will. If that government were to ask members of the

official opposition for help, if they were to really listen once in a

while to the opposition and not just sit here having the words come in,

then even the backbenchers might become innovative. Even the

backbenchers may decide that they're not just going to stand up and

read the speeches supplied out of research, and maybe they would come

up with new ideas. Maybe even the backbenchers wouldn't be afraid to

say: "I agree with the general thrust, but I think there's something

wrong."

Surely one of those backbenchers could have found something wrong

with the budget. Surely there was something in the budget that one of

the backbenchers didn't agree with. One exception is the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who made one of the better points

in the last while when he was talking about parliamentary secretaries

and the fact that it is dangerous for a parliament to have too many

people who are paid at the whim of government. The backbenchers,

regardless of party, must be independent. They must be independent to

exercise their free will....

MR. VEITCH: Were you that way?

MR. LEA: No. If I had always been that way, I would be

prouder than I am today. But I'm going to tell you something, Mr.

Member: I wish I had always been that way, because the only thing in

our British parliamentary system that protects citizens from the

tyranny of the majority is the independence and conscience of the

backbenchers — the private members. When that goes, there is no

protection against the tyranny of the majority, which is the

government. That is going to be lacking in this House, because

parliamentary secretaries now....

Only one backbencher on the government side has a part of his income

that is not at the whim of government. That is a dangerous thing to

happen in the British parliamentary system. On the other hand, if you

were to take all of the people on the government side who have part of

their salary at the whim of government, and then ask the official

opposition how many owe part of their income to the whim of the Leader

of the Opposition, you would have quite a number of people with part of

their living at the whim of two political leaders in this House. How

many have real freedom to be independent?

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour, Mr. Speaker....

AN HON. MEMBER: And yourself.

MR. LEA: I only get money from the people, and most of the

people on this side only get money from the people. It's on the other

side that not only do you get money from the people but you get

government dollars, and it is hush money.

Talk is cheap. One of the things that's always disappointed me about the member for North Vancouver–Seymour is that in the crunch he always votes with the government, except for one time when we both broke ranks.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I can't remember the other two. I remember once, because

I was with you. We both broke ranks with our parties to vote on bunker fuel.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did a speech on it too.

MR. LEA: Yes, I did speak on it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You see, there is the inanity of that group. He

says: "After he brought it to your attention, you saw the error of your

ways and changed the way you were going to vote." One of the problems

with this place is that they actually think debate is a wasted effort;

that debate is useless in parliament and only action counts. Debate is

one of the most important ingredients of democracy. Without debate we

are nothing. Debate is not wasted — or at least it shouldn't be. This

is the place where we should share ideas. This Legislature would be so

much richer if we actually shared ideas in here.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning I said I support this budget, and I will be voting

for it with great reservations. I do it because I want to put the responsibility

exactly where it belongs: in the government benches. It's their budget.

They're responsible, and they will be accountable.

MR. REYNOLDS: It's a pleasure to get up and speak on this

budget, Mr. Speaker. It's especially interesting to speak on the last

day of the budget, because you get the opportunity to listen to the

wisdom of all those who have spoken before you. Certainly there has

been some great wisdom in the past few days from both sides of the

Legislature, and it's been a very enjoyable budget debate.

I couldn't help but make some comments. I hadn't even intended to

talk on the Senate, Mr. Speaker, but our illustrious House Leader (Hon.

Mr. Gardom) had to bring the topic up. I certainly have some opinions

myself on that and would just like to talk about that for a second,

because I think it's so easy to dismiss the Senate. It's so easy for

the independent member, the leader of the United Party (Mr. Lea), to

talk about dismissing the Senate and getting rid of them, and about how

they all fall asleep.

I used to have the pleasure of walking in every once in a while when

we were passing bills in Ottawa and watching them sleeping. But there

are some people who do work in the Senate, and who work very hard. I

can't help but think of Senator George van Roggen, who has done the

books on trade between Canada and the U.S. That is one of the best

proposals that I've seen in this country in a number of years, Mr.

Speaker.

But the problem with the Senate is not the Senate; it's the method

by which those members are sitting in the Senate. I think the sooner

that we as a government in British Columbia and other governments in

Canada can convince the Prime Minister that we should go to a fully

elected Senate, elected by region, in this country.... Then we'll have

a Senate that has some teeth in it, a Senate that represents all the

people of Canada, and a Senate that gets some action and gets some

positive activities taking place in our country.

I think, Mr. Speaker, there's a great feeling among Canadians out

there that they would like to see an elected Senate. Certainly I know

that at this time when we have disagreements with the federal

government, if we had senators who were on an equal footing it wouldn't

matter that the province of Quebec elected 58 Tories, and they have to

be nice to them now to make sure they get them re-elected; it wouldn't

matter how many were elected in Ontario. If our Senate group from

British Columbia on a regional basis were equal to those

[ Page 5434 ]

regions, they would have the power to get those

things that were good for British Columbia, and that's what we need in

this country.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Of course, for those who don't know how it works in the United

States, that's how it does work in the United States, Mr. Speaker. The

Senate is represented equally by every state in that country, and

that's why the Senate has some power. I think it would be very nice to

see that happening in this country.

Now some members talk about the members of the government, and how

we get our speeches from research. I certainly don't. I've just got my

notes that I prepared myself I like to get up and talk about the

positive aspects of the budget. But one member on the opposite side

said we can't disagree with the government. Certainly we can disagree;

we can. I would have liked to have seen some things in the budget that

weren't there, and I will fight within my party to try to get them

there.

I certainly think, Mr. Speaker, as an example of that, that the 7

percent tax on a bill of $7 or over in restaurants should be across the

board for all restaurants. I think it's a discriminatory tax against a

certain segment of society. I think that's wrong. There should be an

equal tax in restaurants. I'll keep on making that proposal to the

Minister of Finance; hopefully somewhere along the line he'll make that

change.

I would also mention, Mr. Speaker, that some of the things in the

budget.... The minister increased the tax on cigarettes. I'm a smoker,

but I quit smoking a week ago. I don't think I quit smoking because he

put the tax on there, but because I thought it would be good for my

health. But maybe that segment of the budget will encourage some people

to quit smoking in this province. I'm not going to be one of those

reformers who says that everybody should quit. It's a habit that I

enjoy, but I decided that because of my health I would quit smoking.

Hopefully I can get up here a year from now and still say that I've

quit smoking — even six months from now — and hopefully, like a lot of

others, I won't gain a lot of weight because of the fact that I quit

smoking.

Mr. Speaker, I think that's one of the positive aspects of the

budget. We hear a lot of things from the opposition about what's

happening in the budget. They keep on talking about jobs. I think it

must be very nice for the opposition to get up and keep on hammering

away at what this government is not doing, but I haven't heard any of

them get up yet and talk about all the things we are doing.

I hear the member for Victoria here, who is sitting in the chamber

now and, I understand, will speak next. I wonder if he's going to get

up and talk about some of the positive things that are happening in

Victoria and on Vancouver Island. I wonder if he's going to talk about

the new Island jetfoil — that service that is going to go from here to

Seattle twice a day and to Vancouver and back; a high-tech industry

that is supplying a number of jobs in the Victoria area and will bring

thousands of tourists to the Victoria area. Mr. Speaker, I don't think

he's going to get up and talk about the positive aspects of that Island

jetfoil. There are millions of dollars invested in that in this city,

and it's going to benefit the province. It creates jobs....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member says: "Taxpayers' money." Yes,

Island Jetfoil has taken advantage of the federal government's SRTC

grants, but they are also matching those with millions of dollars of

their own money. They are smart business people, but business people

who are taking a risk on a venture that a lot of people say can't be

successful. Yet I know from their reservation systems that they have

already booked thousands of people to come to the Victoria area when

their system opens up next month. Why don't the NDP talk about the

positive aspects of that instead of talking about the Marguerite ,

which is just as important for Victoria but loses millions of dollars a

year? They want to lose millions of dollars a year, but they do not

want to talk about the positive things.

MR. BLENCOE: You want to shut the Maggie down; that's your hidden agenda.

MR. REYNOLDS: You see, Mr. Speaker, here's the member for Victoria talking about a hidden agenda: we want to close the Marguerite down. We're the ones who are keeping the Marguerite

going, and we're trying to make it a profitable venture and bring

thousands of tourists to Victoria. But the NDP wants to go out and

spread the false rumour that this party wants to close things down.

This is the party that encourages not only free enterprise but the Marguerite .

We're encouraging the jetfoil to get going. We've made space available

for them to bring tourists into the harbour of Victoria and have

created jobs in Victoria, and I haven't heard one of the NDP members

for Victoria get up and talk about the positive aspects of that in this

budget.

MR. BLENCOE: It's mostly American jobs.

MR. REYNOLDS: That's absolutely untrue, absolutely false.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's American money too, isn't it?

[3:30]

MR. REYNOLDS: It's American money that's going to be coming

to Victoria and spent in hotels, motels and restaurants. Mr. Speaker,

that's what is important. Victoria and the NDP talk about wanting clean

industry. What could be cleaner than tourism? This company is promoting

tourism in the Victoria area. But no, I guess the NDP have to knock it

because it wasn't the government that bought it; it wasn't the

government that invested millions of dollars. It's private enterprise,

and they don't like that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, how about talking about International Electronics

Corp., another company in the Victoria area? In fact they've got an

office building in Victoria and they've got one out in Saanich, with

hundreds of people employed. Again they might say: "Oh, tens of

millions of dollars of taxpayers' money." Yes, the federal government

brought in an SRTC program that allowed people to raise money that way,

but they also put their own money up. There are thousands of people

being employed in this province because of that federal government

program, but we don't hear about those positive things from the NDP.

Maybe in that office where they are going to develop and work on

high-tech programs they can develop one or two items that can employ

tens of thousands of people in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, the NDP

just don't understand the

[ Page

5435 ]

high-tech industry. They don't understand free

enterprise. They don't understand people who take risks with their

money to try to find jobs for other people.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: The minister over there mentions that we can't

get a lot of these people to Victoria in the winter because they won't

plough their streets, which is very true. Of course, that's the one

thing the member of the NDP and I might be able to agree on. He knows

that they don't plough the streets here.

Mr. Speaker, it's frustrating to sit here and listen to these NDP

members who want to be negative all the time. They promote Manitoba as

the salvation of Canada. Well, I'm going to get into Manitoba a little

bit later, and Australia. I could give you some quotes about those

areas.

Mr. Speaker, if they want to talk about jobs in British Columbia,

why don't they talk about the Whistler area? This party, the NDP,

knocked the money that was given to support Whistler. Whistler has

created hundreds of jobs for British Columbians. They would have liked,

a few years ago, to have seen Whistler go broke. They walked around....

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose riding is that in?

MR. REYNOLDS: Whistler happens to be in my riding, Mr.

Member. It's one of the greatest ski areas in the world. I've been up

there a number of times visiting my constituents this winter and

visiting the Americans....

AN. HON. MEMBER: It's second only to Whitewater.

MR. REYNOLDS: No, I have to disagree with you. Whitewater is

a great skiing area, but it's second-best to Whistler. Whistler is the

mountain that we've got in British Columbia that is second to none in

Europe or the United States. The development that is taking place

there.... The people who are working there just do a phenomenal job of

promoting British Columbia. If you go and visit Whistler any day now,

there's great spring skiing after a foot and a half of snow this

weekend.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: They still have powder snow in Whistler also. I

don't want to compete with you in that area, because I think all of

British Columbia is a great skiing area. But Whistler is an area about

which this party, the NDP, knocked the job that this government did.

They like to hammer away at Whistler and the investment that this

government put up there.

Last summer in Whistler, with the promotion that is going on there,

the hotels were operating at near capacity on most weekends. The golf

course was full. When that great convention centre opens this June in

Whistler, Whistler will be a year-round resort where it will be very

difficult to find a hotel room, and there will be thousands of jobs for

British Columbians in the Whistler area. That's another positive aspect

to what this government is doing to build up a tourism industry.

As we all know in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, we can talk about

mining, forestry and all the other industries. There is high

unemployment right now in forestry and mining. That's not because of

this government; it wouldn't matter if this government or the NDP was

in power right now. With the world markets, forestry and mining are at

a low ebb, and we would have high unemployment. In fact, if you go to

Manitoba, which this opposition talks about all the time.... If you

talk about unemployment in Manitoba.... They talk about how great it

has been there. I just got the figures for Manitoba, and unemployment

in Manitoba is up to 43,000 unemployed; there were 48,000 last year and

42,000 the year before. In the last year, 1981, when there was a free

enterprise government in Manitoba, there were 29,000 unemployed in that

province and 27,000 the year before. Unemployment has been on the

increase ever since the Manitoba government changed over to the NDP. If

they want to be realistic, and talk about....

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the NDP wants to sit here and

argue percentages, but they don't want to argue jobs for people. They

don't want to look at the direction that this province is going in:

building a tourism industry that will be second to none in Canada;

where unemployment will drop drastically during Expo and after. They

don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about how well their

government does in Manitoba. Manitoba is in such bad shape that there

will be a replacement there very shortly. And it will be a pleasurable

day in this House when there are no NDP governments left in Canada.

I'll talk about a few more positive things — all the positive jobs

that are being created. It certainly bothers them, Mr. Speaker, when

you start to give them facts and information about Manitoba.

MR. REID: They don't like the facts.

MR. REYNOLDS: They don't like the facts and they don't like the positive jobs you can talk about.

The International Electronics Corp. on Vancouver Island — there are

hundreds of new jobs that weren't there last year. If their research

comes up with some programs, there could be tens of thousands of jobs.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Here's a member who wants to yell about

Dynatek. Dynatek went the free enterprise route. The guy couldn't raise

the money, and he went down the tube — that's the way free enterprise

works — but International Electronics didn't. I guess the NDP would

have funded Dynatek; not only would the investors have lost their

money, but the government would have lost their money also.

Newtec Industries is another company in Vancouver. It started out

last year with two or three employees, in the riding of Burnaby. Right

now they have 40 or 50 employees working double shifts in the high-tech

industry. I was at their annual meeting the other day, and they were

telling us that their sales, which are about $4 million now, will be

rising to $40 million or $50 million over the next few years. It's a

new industry; it's high tech. Their researchers have discovered some

microchips that are going to be sold around the world. It's going to

employ hundreds of people in British Columbia.

They don't want to talk about Moli Energy — the new battery. I think it's out in one of the NDP ridings. It's a new

[ Page 5436 ]

industry that's going to employ hundreds of people in British Columbia. It's an industry encouraged by this government.

Boats in Kelowna. The NDP members don't want to cheer on those young

entrepreneurs up in Kelowna — 25 years old. They started building

houseboats at the age of 22, and are now shipping trainloads of boats

back to eastern Canada. I understand they're now going to start

shipping trainloads down to the United States. I understand they employ

in excess of 150 people in their plant. Two young entrepreneurs, both

25 years of age, who didn't come running for any assistance; they did

it on their own. They're selling a quality product.

Those are new jobs. And those are the types of industries that we

have to create in British Columbia. If the NDP would only understand

that these are the types of jobs that must be created in Columbia if

we're to make sure we don't run into these problems again in the future.

I might also mention that in the mining industry the budget that the

minister has brought in will encourage jobs around this province. Byron

Creek today announced an expansion of their coal-mine in Elk Valley

today with 250 construction jobs. That's 250 more British Columbians

working in the construction area, opening a mine that's going to employ

hundreds of other people in an area where unemployment is high. These

are people that like the budget that the Minister of Finance has

brought in and are going to get back working because this government

has had the right policies. We're not negative, Mr. Speaker. Certainly

we know we're not perfect. No government is ever perfect. Certainly,

Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the NDP right now you'd think we had

three perfect years when they were in power. I go back and read the

headlines: they don't really read much different than they read now.

All governments have problems, but this government took leadership in

Canada when times were tough, and this government is taking leadership

now in a partnership program that's going to put people back to work

and make British Columbia a better place for you and all our children.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'll tell them about education in a minute; I

see our friend the critic for education saying we have to talk a little

bit about that. I want to talk about other projects that the NDP spend

all their time knocking.

Northeast coal. We sit here and listen to member after member talking about

how terrible northeast coal is for the province. Well, I might suggest to all

those members of the NDP that they go visit that area and talk to the people

who work in that area. We just announced this month a new elementary school

for 250 students in Tumbler Ridge. That's progress in northern British Columbia.

Those 250 children have parents who are working and paying taxes and producing

a product that we can ship to Japan that will make millions of dollars for British

Columbia. But we haven't heard anything from the NDP about northeast coal

except about how it's bad for British Columbia, how this government sold

out British Columbia. Ten years from now when the population in those areas

has increased even more, these NDPers will be maybe saying: "Oh, it wasn't

a bad project at all." But maybe they'll find something wrong with

it. Maybe the school won't be large enough and one of them will have to

get up and ask some questions about how we can expand the school in Tumbler

Ridge to make sure the children there get a proper education.

I want to also talk about the Challenge 85 program. The NDP talks

about jobs for young people. This government is going to invest $30

million this summer in 17,000 young people and create some work for

them; 17,000 young people will know they have a future in British

Columbia. Why aren't the NDP getting up telling us all the positive

things about that program? That's one of the frustrating things when

you have to listen to this negative debate. All they want to do is

attack. We've heard about all this cooperation the NDP talks about. It

wouldn't be so bad if they would say: "We recommend changes in certain

areas, but your Challenge 85 program for young people is a good program

and we support it." We haven't heard that. I think the young people of

this province would be encouraged if they heard the NDP get up and say:

"We encourage this government. We think they're doing a great job in

this program for young people and commend them for it." But no, Mr.

Speaker, instead of giving any praise at all, they just don't mention

it. I think that's one of the problems we have when we talk about

consultation and how we're going to cooperate in this House. It might

be nicer if the opposition took a different tack when they're talking

about these types of programs.

Mr. Speaker, in the last few days we've heard a number of members

from the opposition get up and talk about education, specifically

universities, because we've had a couple of people leave this province

for higher-paying jobs. I said to myself: well, anybody can leave for a

higher-paying job; I think a number of people do it, and they might not

necessarily go outside the province to get that kind of a job. So I had

my staff phone the universities and ask them how many professors might

have been hired in our different universities last year, and where they

came from, because I thought it might be an interesting figure for a

party that wants to talk about the outflow of our members leaving

British Columbia. The figures were quite amazing. At the University of

Victoria, nine faculty were appointed for this academic year, four from

within British Columbia and five from outside. So five professors came

to the University of Victoria this year from outside British Columbia

because they like the university, the quality of the education and, I

assume, the possibilities for the future in British Columbia. Simon

Fraser: five faculty hired this year; three from outside British

Columbia and two from inside. Even at Simon Fraser the majority of the

professors hired this year came to us from outside of British Columbia.

[3:45]

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) mentions that

they like the climate. I would not doubt that at all. We've got the

best climate in Canada, and that's why this government's promoting

tourism.

MR. REID: Manitobans come here too.

MR. REYNOLDS: I think it goes to point out the argument that

the NDP use, that they're leaving this province. The majority of the

professors hired by our universities this past year came from outside

of British Columbia. The University of British Columbia hired 53 new

professors this year, 23 from British Columbia and 30 from outside

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I would imagine some of them are coming from Manitoba, but the majority of the professors hired at our

[ Page

5437 ]

three universities this year came from outside

British Columbia. I think that's something the NDP should look at.

Sure, they can use the politics of the day: the president of UBC quits

and a professor at University of Victoria quits. It makes big news. But

what about all of those professors that came to British Columbia from

outside of British Columbia because they know we're a growing province

and they like the universities they're coming to. The professors that

left here.... Where is the statement on how much money they left here

to get? Sure it's easy after you've nailed down your new job. You go to

Calgary and you sit down and you sign the contract for a pay increase,

and then come back here and say: "I'm leaving because we've got a lousy

government." Well, if he had that many principles, why didn't he resign

when he felt that way and then go look for a job? Instead, they go out

and sign up for the job, and then come back and announce they have

quit. That's easy to do.

If we're going to debate these things in the Legislature, we have to

be prepared to offer all the facts. I don't think we're getting all the

facts from the other side, especially on the education issue. That's

why I wanted to bring those figures up about people moving to British

Columbia. People are moving to this province because they know what

this government is doing with Expo 86 coming up.

The NDP talk about jobs. If this government didn't have the

foresight to start Expo.... Not many people remember that when it

started it was going to be a small fair. It's grown into one of the

largest world's fairs that we've ever had. We should be talking about

the fact that the Chinese, the Russians and the Americans are going to

be there with large pavilions. It's the first time in the history of a

world's fair that those three major countries will be on the same site

at a world's fair.

This world's fair will bring tourists to British Columbia. The

infrastructure that we're building around it will create jobs for now

and also tremendous jobs for the future. I might suggest to our friends

in the NDP — and I'm sure the minister responsible would make the time

available for them — that they go take a tour of the Expo site. While

they are there, they should go down and take a tour of Canada Place,

the federal government's participation in Expo. I don't know of anybody

who could go through that facility in one day and not come away being

proud of what we're doing in British Columbia and proud of the

infrastructure that we're building in this province to make sure that

tourism, which is going to be our number one industry in this province,

will be well served and that the tourists who come to this province

will be well served.

I would very sincerely suggest that to our New Democratic friends.

Go and take a tour, because it is something to see. If you stand up in

the Canada Place pavilion and look out over the north shore mountains

out to the west coast of Vancouver Island, you can see the Expo site

and see the construction workers working. This gets me excited

sometimes when I see all those thousands of people working on those

projects that the NDP are knocking. And they say that they're the party

of the worker.

That's why I guess the NDP hasn't been the government, except for a

brief glimpse in the history of our province. They talk about being a

party of the workers, but they're knocking every major project that

this government has started in this province that employs the workers

of this province — a province with one of the finest construction

industries in all of Canada, if not North America. You can see that by

the fine facility we're building down at Expo and at Canada Place. You

can see it, Mr. Speaker, on the ALRT — one of the finest rapid transit

systems in all of Canada, if not North America, one that's fanning out

all over the lower mainland.

Just today I got a brochure in the mail and a letter from Port

Coquitlam and Coquitlam. They want the ALRT coming over their way. That

council isn't made up of only Socreds; they have some NDPers there. But

they can see the benefits of the jobs that this government is creating

to build an infrastructure not only in Vancouver but in Victoria that

will be able to handle all the tourists that will come to this site and

all the areas around this province. I understand now there are about 75

communities that have signed up to participate at Expo. When people

come to visit the lower mainland during Expo, they'll stay there for

three or four days, but they'll want to fan out around the rest of the

province and see beautiful British Columbia.

MR. REID: Even people from New Westminster are coming.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm sure they'll go to New Westminster. One of

the finest junior hockey teams in all of Canada is in New Westminster.

Even if they're not playing there in the summer, New Westminster is one

of our finest cities — a great place to tour. The ALRT is going to stop

there, which will probably benefit that area. There are so many areas

that we can be positive about.

I listened to all this debate from the NDP members here, talking

about how great Manitoba was. Gary Filmon, who's the MLA for Tuxedo,

sent me a little brochure — we all send these mailers out to our

constituents — and when I read his brochure I said: "Gee, I should get

back in the House and listen to some more of these speeches from the

NDP, because he's not saying the same thing they are." I mean, I hear

it's so great from the NDP Just let me give you a few statistics from

Manitoba, this province that is doing so well under the socialists, and

the one that we have to sit here and listen to our friends in the NDP

about all the time — because it's the only government left they can

talk about. It won't be there for very long. The next election in

Manitoba is coming up in the very near future. They've stopped talking

about France and they're going to stop talking about Australia pretty

soon, because they're doing pretty poorly there. There won't be

anything left to talk about. But then they'll have to sit down and

maybe reappraise what they do in this House and maybe start to think

that they should cooperate a little bit more with this government in

building British Columbia. If they don't get that way, after the next

election they'll only have half a dozen seats left here.

The number of farm bankruptcies in Manitoba has gone up. When the

free enterprise party was in power — the Conservatives — they averaged

about 14 a year. Under the NDP they've gone to 30 in '82, 62 in '83 and

62 in '84 — a phenomenal increase in farm bankruptcies. Who can believe

that this is the great Manitoba government that we hear about from

these members?

Unemployment is just about double what it was when the Conservatives

were in power in Manitoba. The NDP talks about hydro rates. When the

Conservatives were in power.... It has just been a straight-up-line

chart; they've gone up every year since the NDP have been in power.

Everywhere in this brochure from the Manitoba Conservative

[ Page 5438 ]

member I read that things in Manitoba are terrible. Bankruptcies are up. Unemployment's up. And let's look at the 700....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. REYNOLDS: I hope you'll take some of my time off for

those interruptions from the member for Manitoba — for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke). He should be in Manitoba. But he says it's nonsense.

Manitoba got $780 million from the federal government. Lloyd

Axworthy, to save his seat, gave $780 million to Manitoba last year.

Manitoba also received $480 million under the equalization program, a

program that this government is a contributor to. If we had received

the same benefits as the government of Manitoba, we wouldn't have a

deficit in this province.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: He says nonsense: $780 million to the NDP in

Manitoba from the Liberal government to save a seat, and $480 million

in equalization payments under a program that every man, woman and

child in this province donates to — to keep that socialist government

blundering along and messing up the province of Manitoba.

It's been a pleasure to speak on this budget, a budget that means

partnership in this province, progress in this province, and I look

forward to debating the bills that are coming from the budget in the

next few weeks.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it's quite evident from that last

government member that our positive message and our positive ideas and

our agenda for the future of British Columbia — that British Columbia

deserves better than this government — is getting through, because all

they can speak about is what we're going to do and what we're saying is

happening in British Columbia; not one word about their so-called

positive budget. Clearly they are reacting to what we're saying, and

the polls are indicating to them that they are in serious trouble.

British Columbians are fed up and want a new government in the province

of British Columbia. We'll be pleased to give them that in about a

year's time, when the election is finally called in the province of

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, that last member indicated the desperation of this

government. All he could attack was what we're saying as an opposition

about what should happen in British Columbia. The people of British

Columbia know that we have the positive agenda for what should happen

in this province. We know what real cooperation is all about, and we

know that we can work with British Columbians and establish a British

Columbia that all British Columbians can be very proud of. British

Columbians today are not proud of what this government has done to

their beautiful province. They want changes and they want them as

quickly as possible.

I want to talk this afternoon about municipal issues, the theme of

so-called cooperation and what I think is happening to municipalities —

why I think they should be drawn into the process of reconstruction in

British Columbia. Clearly this government has not recognized in this

budget the long-term fiscal problems that municipal governments are

facing today.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: If the minister returns to his seat, perhaps we

would respect his comments; but if he makes them from the incorrect

seat, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you will take the necessary precautions.

Municipalities today face serious fiscal concerns. They need a

government and a Minister of Municipal Affairs who is prepared to sit

down and sincerely take a look at their longterm financial problems.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities put out an excellent brief on their

fiscal and taxation problems. Unfortunately, this government has not

taken their concerns to heart, because they still are not applying

themselves to the deep-seated fiscal concerns of municipalities. The

fact is that property tax is still the major source of revenue for

municipalities; unfortunately, the statistics indicate that only 44

percent of all property tax is now applied, or can be applied, to

municipal purposes. This means that other jurisdictions — other levels

of government and provincial departments — are more and more putting

the squeeze on local government revenues. This government is refusing

to deal with the fiscal squeeze that municipalities currently face.

[4:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The tax changes outlined in this budget only tinker with the problem

of securing long-term fiscal stability for local government. They do

not deal with the serious inflexible costs that municipalities face.

They do not deal, for example, with the rising police costs or rising

fire costs. They do not deal with how the provincial government is

going to share in those important areas of municipal responsibility.

The minister doesn't talk anywhere in his deliberations about the

serious infrastructure problems that local municipalities are facing,

or the reversal of formulas by this government in terms of

cost-sharing. In short, this government continues to abandon local

government and does not come to terms with the fiscal problems local

governments face.

It is time this government recognized that to deal with the

deep-seated problems — particularly fiscal problems — local governments

face today, they have to develop programs in true partnership with

local government. They have to develop a real cooperative framework for

meaningful dialogue between the provincial and municipal governments.

The tinkering we have seen thus far can only mean that in the long term

the property owner who is trying to hang on to their home is going to

have to pay for those tinkerings. The tax relief that we have seen put

forward thus far will in time always come at the expense of the

individual homeowner. We've got to look at the real problems that local

governments face and not just tinker with the system.

It's time we raised the importance of local government and its

problems to a top priority in British Columbia. I think we need a

proper municipal-provincial dialogue on the exploration of progressive

tax systems that can be utilized by local government. I've talked about

it many times in this House; I won't go into those details today. But I

will say that local government cannot continue to rely on real property

tax in the long term to ensure that its infrastructure is maintained

and that our communities, towns and villages remain healthy. This

government is not applying itself to that problem.

I would remind this government once again that the local governments of towns and villages are the basis of our

[ Page 5439 ]

province and our communities. If they are not in

good shape, if they are not being properly supplied with the

infrastructure, resources or revenue that they need to ensure they are

healthy, then the whole British Columbia infrastructure — socially and

financially — is in jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, I have already suggested in this House that there be

real dialogue with local government, not in the way that we have seen

it in the last few weeks. In my estimation, the provincial government

has to really analyze what cooperation with local government means. Be

sincere in the application of that term. What we saw only two weeks

ago, calling all these mayors, aldermen and the chamber of commerce....

I would note that the workers of this province, the representatives of

labour, organized or unorganized, were not asked to participate in that

so-called partnership conference. The chambers of commerce were asked;

most of them didn't bother to show up, because they knew they could

read it in a press release. But if this government is serious about

cooperation, then it must tell those thousands of elected people what

they're going to do before they announce it. It must develop those

programs in consultation with the UBCM, with the mayors, with the

regional associations, and really be sincere about developing a

cooperative framework for whatever their agenda is. Cooperation and

partnership means two people in a partnership, or two organizations, or

two distinct groups. We are not getting that in the province of British

Columbia. The minister made it clear what he means by cooperation when

he said to all these 300 or 400 people who did come to that gathering:

"If you're not interested in this package, we don't want you to take up

our time."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! Who said that?

MR. BLENCOE: The minister said that. It's on the record. "We

don't want to bother with you. If you're not interested in what we have

come up with, we don't want to talk to you." Every single person heard

that statement from the minister. He categorically said: "If you're not

interested in our package, and what we view cooperation and partnership

as all about, we don't want to talk to you." That's what he said. Now

what is that in terms of a cooperative framework? That's not

cooperation; that's coercion of local government. The minister said,

and everybody heard him: "Take it or leave it. We have developed this

in the back rooms. We haven't discussed this with any UBCM executive in

terms of any details or the implications or the extension of your

programs. We haven't looked at the fiscal implications of this program

with local government. We've just come up with it and we're dumping it

here in the Newcombe Auditorium. Take it or leave it. If you don't want

it, we don't want to hear from you." What's that going to do for

cooperation in the province of British Columbia? What should have

happened was a meaningful meeting of the minister and his staff and the

UBCM and the area associations and key mayors, and they should have....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Ten years later.

MR. BLENCOE: Not ten years later, Madam Member.

They should have said: "Look, what are the common problems? What are

the common issues? What are the implications if we do this? What is the

short-term plan? What are the long-term directions and fiscal problems

of local government that we can come to terms with?" That's

cooperation: a meaningful dialogue when two parties are recognized, or

the senior partner says: "Yes, you are a partner." But we didn't get

that with this particular approach by this provincial government.

There was no consideration in this so-called cooperative package for

the built-in problem of what this program will do to those areas that

don't have revenues to be able to participate. What it will do and what

it is about to do is play off rich against poor. It will aggravate the

economic disparities between municipality and region. There was no

application of equal treatment of all municipalities and local

government in this particular program. That's a critical factor: no

application of equal treatment or universality of a program, a sharing.

If there are wealth, resources, revenues or programs to be shared, how

can we do that in a universal application, Mr. Speaker, that's fair to

every single municipality, town or village in the province of British

Columbia? This so-called cooperative framework breaks everybody up.

There is not an equal treatment of each area. What it does — the

president of the UBCM and others have said it — is put one municipality

against another. I already know of a number of municipalities who are

looking at this particular package....

MRS. JOHNSTON: There's nothing wrong with competition.

MR. BLENCOE: Competition, yes, but you see, Madam Member,

when you've got the fiscal health of all communities to consider, you

can't put one up against the other. You've got to have equal

application, to be able to share in your particular program. What's

going to happen is that certain municipalities with reserves, which may

be considerable, are going to be able to participate. But what happens

to those municipalities that have struggled through this recession and

have been waiting for some equal sharing of revenues? They are not

going to be able to participate, Mr. Speaker. The point I make is that

when you are dealing with municipalities and local governments, you

don't go through the back door and create all sorts of disparities or

programs that not everybody can share in. You want to apply them

equally, so that all can participate and all can benefit. This program

certainly does not do that.

As a matter of fact, what's going to happen over this particular

program — and I'll go into detail when the bills get called — is that

you will start discount wars between various municipalities over tax

incentives. It's already starting. A number of municipalities are

getting caught up with that. Local governments have already indicated

that a majority of them do not have the financial resources to get into

that kind of discount war over tax relief. We have to look at a

positive way rather than a negative, way of trying to restore the

health of local government.

I believe that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the government

should be dedicated to helping all municipalities, not selected

municipalities. I would suggest that if they are sincere, they will go

back and rewrite their agenda and develop a methodology — which I am

going to provide ideas for in a minute — that allows for the

development of a cooperative framework that's designed in consultation,

in cooperation with local government, the UBCM and others. Don't bring

a package down at 12:00 noon on Friday and tell everybody: "This is it.

This is the fait accompli. If you're not interested, we don't want you

to waste our time." In other

[ Page 5440 ]

words, go away. That's no framework. That doesn't

end confrontation in the province of British Columbia. Our party is

dedicated to ending the confrontation in the province of British

Columbia; and this government, through its various municipal packages,

will create confrontation and conflict with local government.

The general health of our communities and our municipalities is an

inducement to investors. I think we all agree on that. The point I want

to make is that by only tinkering with certain components of what's

important in local government at the community level, you are not

necessarily going to create the inducement for the industries to move

in. You can't just say, "We'll give you a few tax incentives or tax

relief, " unless those communities are in general healthy. It's a known

fact that industry moves into a community when the other components of

that community, necessary components, are healthy — when the education

system is in good shape, when the company knows that its staff and

professionals are going to be able to take advantage of a good school

system. The education system must be in good shape. A tax relief of

$30,000 is not going to induce a major corporation to move into a

particular community. You've got to have a good education system.

You've got to have good cultural amenities in place. You have to have

good libraries. You have to have good recreation centres. You have to

have a community that's healthy and a provincial government that's

prepared to support the overall health of a community. Our

universities, in terms of major corporations, must be healthy. Those

companies have to know that they're going to benefit from topnotch

people working at those universities. When they know those universities

are being cut back — and we're losing some of the best people in this

province — that is not an inducement to investment.

The point I'm trying to make is that just tinkering at one end of

the system, without taking a look at the global impact of the three

years of this government on all those necessary components of a healthy

community — unless you mend those, unless you build those up....

[4:15]

Mr. Speaker, as a consequence, I believe the provincial government

must make the rebuilding of municipal infrastructure a priority. By

that, I am initially saying that the overall infrastructure, which

includes the educational system, the cultural system, the health system

and the health enterprise, but specifically to my debate today,

municipal infrastructure in terms of the plant and all the things that

go in to make a municipal operation successful must become a priority.

Mr. Speaker, it's a known fact now, and all the studies indicate it,

that municipal infrastructure in all of Canada but certainly in British

Columbia — that is the plant itself, the sewers and the storm drains,

the underground services and the roads and various things — are in

serious trouble. Unless that basic ingredient of British Columbian

society is healthy, then we've got some major problems down the road.

Rather than come through the back door on tinkering with the tax

system, I would like to see us come through the front door and look at

the overall municipal infrastructure and put our money up front. I am

of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that we should pursue joint funding in

this venture with the federal government on the same level as other

ERDA subsidiary agreements. I think the status of municipalities and

their problems and their concerns and their importance in British

Columbian society has to be at a higher priority. I think it's time to

start talking about a provincial-federal agreement on municipal

infrastructure rebuilding. I think it's time to talk about a new deal

for municipalities in terms of infrastructure rebuilding in the

province of British Columbia. We can talk about ensuring that other

components of British Columbia society are enhanced or maintained, but

unless the basic grassroots level of our society in British Columbia is

maintained properly, we are putting our resources on weak ground.

What I'm saying is that all the provincial effort in terms of

rebuilding British Columbia in time ends up at the local level. When

you have municipalities that are currently based on quicksand in terms

of their infrastructure, and municipalities with services in serious

jeopardy, then what you apply in terms of provincial funding is on

shaky ground.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this House and the current government should

seek a federal-provincial agreement on rebuilding municipal

infrastructure in British Columbia. It has to have the same priority as

some of the other agreements we get with the federal government. If

we're talking about job creation, here is a major investment

opportunity that not only the public sector but also the private sector

could participate in.

We've got to come to terms with the serious infrastructural problems

of local government. I contend that this government is ignoring that

fact. It's ignoring the very serious, detailed and deliberate briefs

that have been put out by the UBCM. They are really an attempt to bring

to the attention of this government that they've got to come to terms

with these fiscal concerns of local government. The current

partnership, or whatever this cooperative or uncooperative framework is

that has been dreamed up, does not come to terms with those issues that

I have brought up today.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Have you read it?

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, I certainly have, Madam Member.

Mr. Speaker, cooperation on these very issues is essential.

Unfortunately, cooperation cannot be turned on and off like a tap. We

saw an attempt by this government to entice local government to the

view that they were indeed serious about their concerns. Unfortunately,

Mr. Speaker, one week later, which was last Friday, we saw what

cooperation means to this government with Bill 30. Without going into

the details, I have to say that that particular piece of legislation

really shows what this government means by cooperation. Without any

dialogue, without any discussion.... The minister is very nervous about

this issue; you bet your bottom dollar he is.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member is canvassing a topic which is the subject of legislation before the House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the member will direct his comments

to the budget and will not dwell on present legislation. He'll have his

opportunity to debate the legislation at a later date.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I'm trying to

make is that this government has based a lot of their budget upon the

concept of cooperation with local government. The point I'm trying to

make is that two weeks ago we

[ Page 5441 ]

had this very expensive announcement, and 35mm

advertising cameras were rolling for their new ads. And then one week

later we saw what cooperation was all about: they moved in and took

over the staff of the Islands Trust so they can manipulate the future

of the islands. That is what cooperation on a municipal level is all

about. That's what cooperation is to this government. It's like moving

into a school board — which we think the government may do — and saying

to the trustees: "Go away. We're forcing you all out. We're going to

take over everything." That's what that move was all about, Mr. Speaker.

How can this government tell the people of British Columbia in those

municipalities that they are serious about cooperation when, with a

swoop of a pen, they announce that they're going to take over the staff

of a group of people who were duly elected by the residents on the Gulf

Islands, and are going to take away any decision-making power they

have? Is that what cooperation in the municipal area is all about to

this government? That cynical move only entrenches the confrontation

between provincial government and municipal government. It does not

allow for intelligent, rational — I know these words are alien to the

government — dialogue between local government and the provincial

government. They move in, take over the staff, come under the

jurisdiction of the staff, and now all the plans and the future of the

islands will be in the hands of a politician. Is that municipal

cooperation, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Finance may wish me to stop

speaking about this, because I know he's very nervous about this issue.

I contend that that is not cooperation; that is coercion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Member. In the budget

debate there is quite wide latitude for members to debate the budget,

but there is no provision to debate legislation that is before the

House. You may debate that legislation at the time it is on the order

paper but not at this time; we are in the motion on the budget debate.

MR. BLENCOE: The point I'm making is that any semblance of

cooperation with local government was thrown out the window last

Friday. This government clearly indicated what it feels about local

governments and duly elected people who make decisions about their own

environment. They moved in.

I would hope, on a positive note, again, that the minister — I've

already asked him to do this — will second a motion that I have on the

floor of this House for the establishment of a meaningful process of

dialogue and cooperation with local government. I'm calling for the

UBCM and mayors and regional districts to meet with the minister and

the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs and Housing to lay

out a detailed economic reconstruction program at the local level.

That's the only way we can get this province rolling: to have true,

meaningful dialogue with local government. Currently we don't have

that. I hope the minister will listen, because the municipalities want

cooperation and don't want confrontation.

MRS. JOHNSTON: It is with pleasure that I rise to support the

budget brought down by this government. It is a budget which, in my

opinion, will stimulate economic renewal and the creation of jobs. This

budget has many strengths. One, of course, which is important to me is

that it meets the concerns of the people I care the most for, the

people of Surrey and White Rock.

With a population of 165,000, Surrey is the fastest-growing

municipality in Canada. It is also, in my opinion, the

fastest-improving community in Canada. Surrey will continue to advance

because people in our community work together. Not only do people work

well with people there, but also the municipal governments work well

with the provincial government, contrary to what was put forward by the

previous speaker. That existing partnership stands ready now to take on

a whole new depth and meaning, as the provincial municipal partnership

act proposed in this budget comes into full being. That proposed

partnership will provide for a cooperative arrangement between the

province and Surrey, as well as other municipalities, which will

directly benefit in the development of renewed economic strength and

the creation of new and, most importantly, meaningful jobs.

Specifically the partnership act will hopefully lead to the signing of

economic partnership agreements between the municipalities of Surrey

and White Rock and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. These agreements

will lead to a variety of measures designed to stimulate incentives for

investment and job creation.

Tax relief will especially help new and small businesses. Municipalities will be able to reduce property taxes....

MR. COCKE: On the same point of order that was raised by the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the member for Surrey is

developing an argument about a bill that's before the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Surrey, I am confident, is aware of the restriction on legislation to be debated on the budget speech.

[4:30]

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to items taken from the budget.

The municipalities will be able to reduce property taxes on new

improvements on industrial properties up to 50 percent. This tax relief

will not cut into the existing level of municipal tax revenues. We are

looking for new developments. Certainly for its part the province will

reduce the school tax on new improvements on non-residential properties

located in participating communities and non-municipal areas, to a

maximum of 50 percent over the five-year period. The maximum benefit

will be gained by those companies who make their investments as soon as

possible.

The budget further goes on to tell us that the participating

municipalities can also waive or reduce business licence fees to a

maximum of $3,000. This will certainly give a big boost to small

companies trying to get started up on limited resources.

In order to make the best possible use out of the tax incentives,

the municipalities need to have an overall plan for economic

development, and to this end the provincial government will offer

grants to fund up to 50 percent of certain costs incurred while

planning such economic strategies. Both business and labour will

participate fully in the formulation of these plans.

The economic strategy plans will be brought forth in the framework of local community organizations for economic

[ Page 5442 ]

development. The province will help to support

these community organizations through meeting 50 percent of the salary

and operating costs up to $25,000 of municipal economic development

officers. It will also provide up to $1,000 to support local volunteer

committees, up to $5,000 for projects promoting investment in the

municipalities, and $5,000 to undertake market research projects

designed to find new and expanding markets for products and services

based in the communities. As well, the assistance will be given to

ensure municipal participation in trade missions abroad.

These measures, Mr. Speaker, are strong proof of the provincial

government's commitment to the economic health of our municipalities. I

wait with great anticipation for the implementation of the partnership

agreement between the provincial government and the municipality of

Surrey and city of White Rock. Certainly we will see renewed economic

confidence and job creation. This prospect, as well, has individuals

and families in my community looking forward to the

provincial-municipal partnership as a very positive step toward

economic renewal.

Surrey and other municipalities will see real benefits as well from

other tax relief measures which supplement and support the initiatives

in the partnership act. One of them which is especially important to

many people in Surrey and White Rock is the proposed legislation which

will permit individuals who have owned and occupied houses or other

residential property for ten years or more to apply to have their

property assessed at its value as a residence, not at its market value

for some other use. The people in Surrey–White Rock who live next to

areas undergoing economic redevelopment will especially see the result

of this measure, which demonstrates the concern of the Minister of

Finance during his tour of the province in his development and tax

hearings. He has responded to concerns expressed by many of my

constituents who are long-time residents in this area. This provision

will greatly benefit the long-time homeowners in areas such as Surrey

and White Rock. No longer will they see themselves taxed out of their

homes because of high-density development proposals for their immediate

areas. Soaring property assessments and the prospect of hefty tax

increases prompted many Surrey homeowners to appeal to courts of

revision in record numbers. Projected tax increases of $1,000 or more

had raised fears that they might lose their homes. Now this measure has

brought great relief to the homeowners of Surrey and White Rock.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Another measure which will help Surrey is the exemption of the ALRT

system from property tax. This will help to keep down the cost of this

exciting transportation system which will prove to be a boon to Surrey

as it will now extend into our community. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, ALRT has

aroused a great deal of public interest and support in Surrey, as I

have stated on many previous occasions. Nearly 1,000 Surrey residents

attended the public meetings on ALRT which were recently held in

Whalley. ALRT will cross over the Fraser River in early 1985. The new

bridge being planned is one of the most advanced suspension transit

bridges in the world. The eight new ALRT cars added to serve Surrey

will run along the planned six kilometres of track through the

community and will stop at two stations, including the modem Scott Road

station. The ALRT service will be able to transport Surrey residents to

jobs and activities in Vancouver in 33 minutes

Certainly the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who

unfortunately has left his seat, should be thankful that the system is

being extended into Surrey because of the probable bottlenecks in his

community if it is not extended. This will definitely improve the

economic climate of both Surrey and Vancouver.

The investment in ALRT will also benefit Surrey through job

creation. In phase 1 of ALRT construction, 5,500 direct person-years

and 11,000 indirect person-years of employment will be created.

Somewhere between one-quarter to one-third of the ALRT jobs will be

held by Surrey residents. This includes the workers at Surrey Iron

Works, working on that company's $12.6 million contract with ALRT.

Local Surrey businesses will have a great deal to look forward to both

in the access to and from Surrey provided by ALRT and in the many

benefits connected directly and indirectly with the ALRT.

The same is true as well for Surrey and Expo. Several Surrey

companies have contracts for work at Expo. For example, Onyx

Contractors has a $4 million contract for food and merchandise

buildings at Expo, and Surrey Iron Works has a contract to provide

foundations for the monorail and steel for the geodesic dome. Most of

the Expo work is with subcontractors in carpeting, flooring and general

hardware subtrades.

The work for ALRT and Expo is stimulating spinoff jobs and

strengthening existing industries. That economic activity will, in the

long term, relieve the pressure on our provincial finances and our

social services. This, in turn, will bolster all government programs.

We already have more room to manoeuvre than we did three years ago.

The