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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5147 ]

CONTENTS

Forestry For The Future Act (Bill M201). Mr. Howard

Introduction and first reading –– 5147

Tabling Documents –– 5147

Oral Questions

Salmon enhancement. Mr. Hanson –– 5147

Post-secondary education funding. Mr. Rose –– 5147

University program cutbacks. Mrs. Dailly –– 5148

Mr. Williams

Vancouver women's health collective. Ms. Brown –– 5148

Aid for Westroc Industries. Mr. Macdonald –– 5148

Tabling Documents –– 5149

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5149

Mr. Barnes –– 5151

Hon. Mr. Pelton –– 5155

Mr. Cocke –– 5157

Mr. Davis –– 5159

Mrs. Dailly –– 5162

Mr. Kempf –– 5165

Tabling Documents –– 5168

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1985

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a

number of people from the Okanagan valley: Mayor Ivan Messmer from the

city of Penticton, Mayor Bob Frost from the town of Osoyoos, Mayor

Richard Topping from Oliver, Alderman Charlie Miller and his wife

Phyllis from Oliver, and Ray Martineau, the administrator from Oliver.

I believe the mayor of Summerland, Rita Hermiston, is also somewhere in

the precincts. I would ask the House to welcome these people.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, together with the mayors

from the Okanagan is Mayor Gloria Stout from Princeton, and I would ask

the House to also welcome her.

Introduction of Bills

FORESTRY FOR THE FUTURE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Howard, Bill M201, Forestry for the Future Act,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the 1983-84 annual report of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services.

Oral Questions

SALMON ENHANCEMENT

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of

treaty with the United States regarding salmon management on the

Pacific and Atlantic coasts. The rationale for signing that treaty was

to rebuild existing stocks, and the federal Conservative government

promised $25 million for salmon enhancement in British Columbia. Is the

minister aware of that rationale being used as the basis for signing

the treaty and of the $25 million for salmon enhancement promised by

the federal government?

HON. MR. PELTON: I thank the first member for Victoria for

the question. Inasmuch as I would like to answer that question with

complete accuracy and as quickly as possible, I will take it as notice

and bring the answer back with a great deal of alacrity.

MR. HANSON: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker, for the same

minister. It has come to our attention that the first act of the

federal government, with respect to this very important issue, is to

break their promise of $25 million and to roll it back to $10 million

in the federal estimates. My question is: is the minister prepared to

take this important matter up with the national government — with Mr.

Fraser, the federal minister — to fight for those jobs that were

promised in this province and to fight for the restoration of this very

important stock?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the new standing

orders before us clearly give direction in question period, both for

questions and answers. Once again, I commend those new guidelines to

all members.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

MR. ROSE: I would have asked this question earlier, except

that the Minister of Universities, I imagine, is just getting over the

shock of the fact that UBC president George Pedersen resigned just

after noon.

Mr. Speaker, since the probable reason for his resignation has been

the systematic diversion of federal funds for post-secondary education

over the years — up to $40 million this year — has the minister decided

to reconsider his 5 percent cut for university budgets for next year?

Is the minister not going to reply to the question?

HON. MR. McGEER: My understanding is that the budget will be presented on March 14.

MR. ROSE: I suppose the operative question might have been:

has the minister decided to follow the example set by Mr. Pedersen?

However, I'm not asking that question. I'm asking whether or not, since

there has been a tremendous cut in budgets –– 19 percent this year,

despite the increase — amounting to $27 million last year, and

systematic diversion, he is going to change his bonus-incentive plan,

which was designed to fire staff at UBC.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I think the details of the budget will

be available on March 14, and not today, so therefore I think the

member's question may be based on an entirely false premise. He really

should wait for the budget and not jump to conclusions, present

rumours, and all those sorts of things.

[2:15]

MR. ROSE: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for basing my assumptions

on previous announcements by the minister which had to do with the

incentive plan. Since the province appears to have decided it can no

longer afford a full range of university programs, what plans has the

minister to send B.C. students to other jurisdictions where they can

get the courses they need and desire?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, no jurisdiction in Canada, and

probably none in the world, provides a greater spectrum of opportunity

in post-secondary education than does British Columbia. I will get the

member exact figures, but I can give approximate figures from last

year. About 35,000 students were in grade 12; about 25,000 of these

obtained high school graduation; about 4,100 went to our three

universities; and just under 10,000 went to our colleges and institutes

to take university-level programs. So our entry into university-level

programs is just over half the graduating student population. This is

extraordinarily high; indeed it is so high that as our high school

graduation classes diminish in size, as they will from now until the

late 1990s, we can anticipate that our total post-secondary population

in British Columbia will be smaller in the year 2000 than it is today.

Our size reduction in British Columbia will be smaller than the

reduction in size that will take place in Quebec, Ontario

[ Page 5148 ]

and almost every other jurisdiction in Canada. The fact is that we're into the era of the baby bust.

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish you'd

admonish that minister. He is not following the current rules of this

House, which outline question period and lengthy and erroneous

responses.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will address the point by the

member at the conclusion of question period, rather than take up the

time of question period. The point will be addressed at that time. Has

the minister concluded his remarks on the question?

HON. MR. McGEER: Before they ask the question, would the

members advise if they want it answered? If they don't want to have the

answer, then please tell me.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, if the options and opportunities for

post-secondary education in B.C. are so grand and glorious and

extravagant, can the minister explain that except for Newfoundland,

B.C. has the lowest per-capita participation rate in Canada?

HON. MR. McGEER: Far from what the member says, it has the

highest. This is, of course, one of the great myths out there. Perhaps

what I'll do, Mr. Speaker, if you like, is table in the Legislature

figures which show each year the number of high school graduates in

British Columbia, and each year the number of entrants to our three

public universities, 21 colleges and seven institutes — I will leave

out the Open Learning Institute, the second-largest institution in

British Columbia, with 16,000 registrants — just to give you some idea

of the enormous population we have in post-secondary institutions,

largely because of the variety and depth of the programs this

government is funding for British Columbians.

UNIVERSITY PROGRAM CUTBACKS

MRS. DAILLY: My question is to the Minister of Health.

Letters have gone out on the UBC campus — in spite of what the minister

for post-secondary education has just said — suggesting there may have

to be complete elimination of some full departments, such as the

rehabilitative medicine department and the dental hygienist program. I

know the Minister of Health is quite aware of the importance of the

programs, particularly dealing with occupational therapists: they're

needed; there are jobs for these people. In view of the fact that they

could be eliminated, has he decided to intervene with his government

before the axe truly falls on some of these programs?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that they

could be eliminated, I would certainly like to be advised if indeed

they are to be eliminated. I'm well aware of the games played at

certain institutions with respect to trying to maintain certain budget

levels. I'm also well aware that when certain modifications and cuts

are required, it is fashionable to go after certain programs that they

know full well should be retained. However, they get maximum exposure

and criticism when they try to eliminate programs which they should

not, while retaining other programs that they could easily eliminate.

Yes, I would be concerned if they were to think of dropping programs

for which we require training in our province, while retaining certain

programs which require none at all. I don't know which letter you refer

to, but if that letter has been circulated, certainly I will respond,

and I'm sure the minister responsible for universities will offer some

advice to those people.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, one of the important programs at

the university contemplated for potential closure is the School of

Architecture, probably the greatest school of architecture in this

country, worth untold wealth physically, economically and socially to

the people of this province. Is it acceptable to the minister that such

a department should end its long life at the University of B.C.?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, it isn't acceptable. As the government,

the general policy that we try to develop on behalf of all the people

is that every program should graduate approximately the same number of

people as the annual demand for the province. Therefore I think you can

take it as government policy that a school of architecture should

graduate at least as many architects as would be annually required in

British Columbia, and so on down the line. The only profession where we

have had difficulty is in medicine, where we continue to graduate only

a fraction of the annual requirements in our province; but that's a

particularly difficult question to address because of the enormous

surplus of doctors being graduated in the United Kingdom, Ontario and

Alberta who eventually become practitioners in our province.

Nonetheless, the objective is to serve the needs of the province and to

offer opportunity to our students. Therefore government policy would be

that we continue to offer that opportunity in architecture.

VANCOUVER WOMEN'S HEALTH COLLECTIVE

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Health and is in the context of International Women's Week. I wonder if

the minister has had a chance to visit with the Vancouver Women's

Health Collective and take a look at the very valuable work they are

doing in terms of health education for women, and, if so, if he would

reconsider restoring their funding.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The answer to the question is no since there is only one question asked.

AID FOR WESTROC INDUSTRIES

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. There's a

productive industry — a secondary industry — in British Columbia,

Westroc Industries on Wall Street in Vancouver; 58 men are losing their

jobs. It's wallboard and gypsum products. The same company has built a

new plant in Calgary that produces wallboard at 135 feet per minute,

compared to 75. It hasn't been modernized.

Has the government any plans at the present time to step in and give

that kind of a productive industry — an employing industry in the

province of British Columbia — a chance to live, the way the other

plant is going to live in Calgary?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the first member for

Vancouver East: if the company has not been able, under its own

initiative, to undertake modernization in order to maintain its market

share — that is, to be competitive — it

[ Page

5149 ]

may find great incentive to do so after the

Minister of Finance tables his budget, and after other programs in

legislative form are introduced by various ministers into this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier the point of order was

raised regarding question period. While the rules that we operate under

may be somewhat new, the advice from the Chair will be familiar to all

members, and that is, simply, that when open-ended questions are asked,

it is only reasonable to expect some latitude in open-ended responses.

Further, hon. members, if it is the desire of members to strictly

enforce the guidelines of question period, it would be difficult on

general observation to find many of the questions in order at all,

under the very confining regulations. So as always, I would ask members

to use discretion, both in asking questions and in answering them, in

keeping with the spirit of question period.

Mr. Blencoe tabled a petition from 600 students of Mt. Douglas Senior Secondary School in Victoria.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, again I rise to support the

throne speech. Just before lunch the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich)

painted a pretty negative picture of what has happened in British

Columbia in the past while, and cited such things as Expo, B.C. Place

and northeast coal. I'd like to put a positive note on those and

indicate to the members and the public of British Columbia that in a

time when jobs were scarce, when the economy had turned down not just

here but in the rest of Canada and in most parts of the world, projects

were undertaken by this government to create jobs — productive jobs,

not make-work jobs — for the future. Expo 86 created a tremendous

number of jobs, and when the fair begins in May 1986 we will see the

benefit of the production related to those jobs in constructing the

Expo site. Northeast coal: we are moving coal to market. We have

created a transportation system, and a port at Ridley Island to move

product to all parts of the Pacific Rim. Those were done by projects of

this government to create jobs in a time when jobs were scarce. That's

the positive message, Mr. Speaker.

[2:30]

I want to start my comments by quoting from a recent

article in the Vancouver Sun :

"The budget should be balanced. The treasury should be refilled. Public

debt should be reduced. The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered

and controlled, and assistance to foreign lands should be reduced lest

the state become bankrupt." The question was put: Was that Premier

Bennett in 1982 when he made his speech on restraint? Was that Brian

Mulroney making his speech with regard to controlling costs? Was that

Ronald Reagan making his speech with regard to reducing the deficit in

the United States? No, Mr. Speaker, that was Cicero in 44 B.C. So the

problem of economic downturn, of economic cycles, has been with us for

thousands of years and it's no different now than it was then. A

government, if it is to be responsible, has to bring its spending under

control. Otherwise, the impact in the long run would be substantial on

the people of that province or that country.

The throne speech states:

"British Columbians, having shared the adversity of

the international recession, are entitled to feel a quiet sense of

optimism as our province enters what promises to be a time of economic

renewal over this second half of the decade. Having restrained public

sector costs, thus preventing the buildup of massive debt and

corresponding tax increases, my government today has room to manoeuver

to pursue its number one priority, the creation of real, permanent jobs

for British Columbians."

Mr. Speaker, we have got our house in order in British Columbia.

It's taken a lot of hard work and some short-term pain to achieve those

goals, but we have our costs under control and can look to economic

renewal in 1985. This is at a time when other governments are just

starting to address the question of controlling government costs. The

finance minister for Canada, Mr. Wilson, has stated that he looks to

reducing the annual deficit by $4 billion to $5 billion in the coming

year. The only way he's ever going to achieve that goal is to look at

his cost of operating government, look at his programs, and he has to

get his house in order. There'll certainly be some short-term pain if

he is able to achieve that goal.

President Reagan announced budget-cutting proposals in December

1984. He wants to reduce his annual deficit from $200 billion, which is

5 percent of the gross national product in the United States, to $100

billion, or 2 percent of the gross national product, by 1988. How is he

going to do it? He's stated that he has to look at reductions in the

medicare program, in aid to college students, in support programs to

farmers and in pay to federal employees. Those are just a few of his

initiatives to try to get his deficit spending under control. The point

I make is that this government identified this problem in 1982, took

action in 1983, and we have our house in order. Now we can, as the

throne speech says, offer a helping hand to the private sector to

assist it in its recovery.

The throne speech talks about tax relief. Last fall the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) toured this province talking to the business

community, the municipalities, the labour union leaders to find out

where they felt the heavy burden of government was and how we could

correct it. He's going to introduce his budget next week, and I think

at that time we will be able to see some of the results of his work

over the past several months.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) did the same

thing. He went out and talked to the municipalities. He wants to work,

as it states in the throne speech, in partnership with municipalities

to achieve economic renewal, at the local level.

The throne speech also states that we're looking to the creation of

a commissioner for critical industries. That commissioner and the

commission would be there to assist industries in their effort to

recover from some of the difficulties they've experienced in the past.

That commissioner of critical industries would bring together business,

management, the labour unions and the government to work in partnership

to resolve some of the problems so that those businesses become

competitive in a world marketplace. It's not a handout, but a helping

hand to assist the recovery of industries which have been ravaged by a

worldwide recession. Success will only result if we are to be

competitive in the world marketplace, and in British Columbia we have

the greatest potential to compete in that marketplace if we can assist

our industries in being competitive.

[ Page 5150 ]

When I say that we have the greatest potential, I want to give you another quote, from Maclean's magazine:

"In 1983, Canadian exports to Asia bypassed our trade

with Europe. Nearly half our immigrants now come from the Pacific,

compared to less than a third who still arrive from Europe. Our trade

with South Korea alone rivals that of our total commerce with France.

Yet we still short-sightedly peer towards Europe, hunting for business

prospects. According to recent data from the Asian Development Bank,

Canadian firms bid on only 23 of the 2,100 projects put out for tender

in the Asia-Pacific area in the past two years."

That's an indication of why we need a Minister of International

Trade to represent British Columbia in those areas where there is

tremendous opportunity for us to export our goods and services, and to

improve the lifestyle of the people in British Columbia as a result of

additional jobs and new products being created here.

Mr. Speaker, the other report I have, from the Wharton Economic Outlook , also

indicated the opportunities that we have on the Pacific Rim. I just quote these

words: "The Pacific Rim developing countries are expected to have the highest

growth rates at 5.6 percent. Next is Japan at 3.8 percent, followed by the total

for all developing countries of 3.7 percent." The greatest amount of growth

is going to take place in the Pacific Rim and in Japan, and we are Canada's

gateway to the Pacific Rim. Because of transportation systems that have been

developed, because of new rail lines, because of double-tracking, because of

port facilities, we have not only tremendous opportunities as an expediter of

products but opportunities for B.C. industries to get out there and obtain new

markets. This government will assist, through the appointment of my colleague

as Minister of International Trade. He's a respected representative of this

province in the world marketplace, well known in the Pacific Rim countries,

and he will do a great deal, I'm sure, to assist the private sector in finding

new markets.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The opportunities are there, Mr. Speaker. All we have to do is seize

them. We as a government can't do it alone. It must be a partnership,

and we all must want to be part of the recovery. All of us, Mr.

Speaker, means business, labour and the government. Business has got to

recognize that it has a responsibility to produce a good-quality

product at a competitive price. The workforce must take pride in their

workmanship. They must recognize the need for efficiency in the

workplace if their employer, the man who pays them the cheque, is to

compete in the marketplace. And the government must recognize that

excessive taxation only results in making the private sector less

competitive and excessive regulation only stifles the private sector.

We must have — and I am confident in saying we will have — a continuing

commitment as a government to be lean and efficient, and to ensure that

the taxpayer's dollar is well managed and well spent. A three-way

partnership to success: business, labour and government; a tremendous

opportunity to achieve great success in the coming years through the

1980s.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments about my constituency.

This happens to be the one speech in which we can expand our point of

view and give some good news about the area we represent. I have some

mayors in the House today, if they're still there. I want to pay a

compliment to a few of them up there.

Talking about partnership, I saw the greatest example of partnership

at the recent 1985 B.C. Winter Games, hosted by Osoyoos and Oliver.

There were 2,000 athletes and 2,400 volunteers, and I have to tell the

mayors who are here today that everywhere I went, when I visited the

various sites, the people said: "Isn't it great to have the communities

working together? Isn't it great to have all these athletes, both young

and old, out here competing in friendly competition?"

I want to publicly congratulate Mr. Howard Engel, the president of

the Osoyoos 1985 Winter Games Society, his board and all their

volunteers for a tremendous job; and Mayor Bob Frost, who in 1983

submitted the bid on behalf of Osoyoos, and then joined forces with

Mayor Dick Topping and the people of Oliver to make the 1985 B.C.

Winter Games a one hundred percent success. My hat is off to the people

of Oliver and Osoyoos for a job well done.

There is one major issue in my constituency. I notice my good friend

and colleague the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) is here. He

usually sits through these speeches, because he knows that every member

is going to ask him about roads, and I'm not going to be any exception.

The reconstruction of Highways 97 and 3 is most important to us in the

south end of the province. The number one priority identified by the

regional districts and the communities in my area is the road from

Penticton to Summerland, which is a very scenic road, beautiful to

drive. However, it is very dangerous when the tourist season is at its

height. It is a windy road, only two lanes, and numerous accidents have

occurred on it. Recently my colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) and I met with the councils and the regional district

directors, and they identified this as the number one priority in the

area. I hope the Minister of Highways gives it serious consideration. I

know the mayors are going to be meeting with him shortly. I think it

would be an opportunity for us to make sure that the tourist industry

benefits by improved transportation systems in the Okanagan valley.

Moving from that to my ministry, as the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs, I have to tell you that we have been attempting to

do our job in becoming lean and efficient. We recognize that because we

are a regulatory ministry we create an awful lot of red tape. In

playing our

part in recovery, I have had my staff in all departments

and divisions review their procedures over the past year and create

improvements where there was the opportunity to do so. We've improved

in the processing of documents; we've eliminated a number of

unnecessary demands re reporting, etc., in the private sector. We're

not perfect, Mr. Speaker, but we've come a long way in working with the

representatives of the business community to eliminate delays.

ICBC. I'm no longer the minister responsible, but I have to tell you

that I'm proud of the organization and its work in the area of

prevention and in providing good service to the motoring public at a

reasonable price. It is in good financial shape, with a reasonable

surplus and adequate reserves.

Mr. Speaker, in the time that I have left — and maybe you could give

me some indication what it is, because I don't want to get half way

through this — I want to mention two items that I as an MLA would like

to see resolved while I am in office. They are very controversial

issues. One deals with Indian affairs. In 1975 I came to the

Legislature. I was to make my maiden speech in 1976, and I went to a

former colleague, Mr. Allan Williams. I said: "What do you speak

[ Page 5151 ]

about in your maiden speech?" He said: "The best advice I can give you is to go to Hansard

and look up some old speeches." I did. I looked up an old speech that

Mr. Williams gave in 1966. It was an excellent speech and one that

dealt with Indian affairs. In 1976, when I made my maiden speech, I too

talked about Indian affairs. I have made many statements in this House

and elsewhere on this subject since that time.

It is now 1985, and I'm not sure whether we are any closer to a

solution. What I want with regard to the affairs of British Columbia

and Canadian Indians is equality. I want the Indian child and the white

child to have equal opportunities. I want the Indian and the white man

to have equal opportunity in education and in the workplace. I think we

can achieve that goal. I don't believe in aboriginal rights for the

Indian. I do believe that he can retain his culture and at the same

time determine his destiny just like any other Canadian. A massive

change has to take place, in my opinion, to give the young Indian boy

or girl a future full of opportunity, while still retaining their proud

heritage. I don't have the answers, but I sincerely hope that

politicians, both white and Indian — those people who gather around the

tables to discuss the constitution and the Charter of Rights — don't

get caught up in the parliamentary rhetoric of land claims, aboriginal

rights, etc. Let's not try and rearrange the sands of time. Let's

address ourselves to the future, because the future is where our

success lies. The future has to be in equal opportunity for white man

and Indian alike.

[2:45]

The second item I would like to comment on deals with the B.C.

Labour Code. It is the responsibility, in my opinion, of politicians

and labour leaders to ensure there is equity in that code. Partisan

positions must be put aside if we are to achieve equality in

labour-management matters in British Columbia. One example that I feel

is not equality is the matter of secondary picketing, which we as

government have addressed in the past. But I do not think we have been

fair and just to innocent third parties.

I am told that delivery trucks are considered to be an extension of

the primary place of business; therefore they can be picketed at the

time of delivery. Mr. Speaker, that's an innocent third party that is

accepting the delivery, the small businessman who has to be faced with

a picket line because he orders goods from an industry or a business

that is struck; I think it is wrong. I think the dispute should be with

the party with which you have a contract. The dispute is not with the

third party, and that third party should not have to suffer. I think

that should be addressed.

Public sector unions organizing in the private sector. Mr. Speaker,

I am well aware, and don't have to be told by Mr. Richards, that

collective bargaining rights for the provincial employees became law in

November 1973. The Labour Relations Board subsequently granted union

certification to 25,000 direct government employees on March 8, 1974 ––

I don't have to be told that in addition to the government service

bargaining unit, the BCGEU holds over 75 certifications for bargaining

units spread throughout the province. These certifications, which are

held by the BCGEU under the Labour Code, are private sector

certifications, and any one of them can also be rated pursuant to the

Labour Code. I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker. I know that — and I am

quoting from a letter to the editor by Mr. Richards, president of the

BCGEU — and that is not the issue I am raising.

1 am raising the issue that although the Labour Code allows it, it

is wrong; I cannot accept that concept. The public sector union

receives dues from public sector employees, who are paid by taxes from

the businesses in the private sector. The public sector, in many cases,

is not impacted by economic downturn, as is the private sector. I do

not feel that we should be looking at allowing the public sector union

to organize in the private sector. I feel that the demands and the

decisions to have work stoppages are not influenced by the same

criteria in a public sector union. I think that if there were

negotiations by a public sector executive negotiator — if they were

organized in the private sector — their decisions would be influencing

the fact that the massive size of the public sector union is within the

public sector, and the small businesses that would be organized by the

public sector in the private sector could be seriously impacted,

because of the non-understanding of what happens in the private sector

when the economy turns down, when your product isn't selling and when

your cost of productions are so high that you're non-competitive. It's

a different world. I recognize that Mr. Richards has the ability and

the right under the present Labour Code to do what they are attempting

to do in the hospitality industry. I just say, as an individual and as

an MLA representing an area, that it's wrong.

Mr. Speaker, those two issues, the Indian question and the Labour

Code, I raise as the MLA for Boundary-Similkameen, a right I have in

this House. I live in an area with a substantial Indian population; I

can see the young people coming up, and I would like to make sure that

they have every opportunity to succeed, the same as the white child.

1 also live in an area which is largely related to the hospitality

industry. I can tell you that the businessmen in my community are

concerned by the strategy of the BCGEU to organize that hospitality

industry. I only hope, Mr. Speaker, the government and the parties

concerned can reach a resolution on these issues which will be in the

best interests of all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say I look forward to an exciting

year. The Throne Speech outlines the strategy for economic recovery. I

am pleased to support it, and I would hope that all members of this

House would work in partnership to carry out the thrust of the throne

speech in the coming months.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I want to say thanks for the

opportunity to speak on behalf of the members on this side of the House

in opposing the limited concepts that are in the throne speech with

respect to economic recovery. However, I must say that in doing so, I

sympathize with the government in its attempts to find solutions to the

complex problems of having a healthy economy in this province. I don't

think that we've found there to be much value in being negative. I'm

sure that all those members on that side of the House do care about

finding solutions to the difficulties that we face in this province. So

when they announced a few years ago that it was necessary to impose a

restraint program harshly upon the people of British Columbia, it was,

in their wisdom, the wise course to take. Unfortunately, as a result of

those programs, we find ourselves today in a situation that is

compounded in terms of adversity and hardship and fallout from those

initiatives. In fact, it is being suggested by those who are analysts,

in terms of details involved in fiscal policies and money management,

that we will be hurting for some time to

[ Page 5152 ]

come. That brings no joy to this side of the house, and certainly not to myself.

I was disturbed, having recognized the government's attempt to find

solutions, that the government did not really take advantage of the

opportunity it had to bring some inspiration to the people of British

Columbia. Not everything that we do is in black and white. It has to

deal with the human element; it's not all in units and in squares. It's

not all the bottom line of dollars and cents. One of the things we've

learned in society is that all of the expertise in the world, all the

academic analysis, the charting of courses, the studies and the

details, the research, the surveys, all the statistical data we can put

together and all of the computer and technological use of advanced

systems of forecasting results.... None of that seems to work without

keeping in mind the purpose for which it is being implemented. We are

concerned about British Columbians as human beings. I fear that in our

zealousness to expound the virtues of good business practices to the

exclusion of the fact that there are the people involved, people with

varying experiences and varying degrees of comprehension and

understanding, and people in the millions, not just in British Columbia

and Canada.... This is a situation in the world, a situation that we

simply must address seriously. It's a much more difficult task for us

as legislators to try to incorporate that human element into those

statutes we can conveniently design to deal with turns and twists in

the bureaucracy.

It was a tragic, but noble and honest, gesture on the part of Mr.

John Munro — the federal Minister of Fisheries, I believe that's his

name...?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think that was the other man.

MR. BARNES: What was his name?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Fraser.

MR. BARNES: Fraser, thank you. I knew there was something wrong with that.

What I'm saying is that that man said something that really shook me

when he said: "It was my fault." Imagine a politician saying it was his

fault, when he had all the excuses in the world that we all use all the

time when we alienate the public. By hiding behind our office or our

ministerial privilege, by the benefits of being a member of this House,

we say: "I don't have to be responsible; I'm only a legislator. There

are limits on what I can do, and I have to make these rules." But

here's a man saying: "It was my fault. I should have maybe looked a

little closer at the implications and consequences of cutting out that

program at UBC, because look what happened."

I don't really think it was his fault, as such, but this is the kind

of detail we have to look at when we start cutting programs. It's not

just in that program. Sure, you cut a program, but you're dealing with

human beings. When we cut those programs in the high schools —

particularly the special needs programs, not just for people who are

disadvantaged because of economic reasons, but those who are

disadvantaged because of affluence.... Some of them are very bright,

and don't get the special attention; it's not just the ones who are

without.

The politician who is going to be effective in the future is going

to have to stop and say: "Hey, we're not just going to take this raw

material and move on it without considering the implications and

consequences for human beings." Human beings. People. We should all

take a course; we should back up a few steps and consider the

implications and consequences of our actions.

When the restraint program was initiated in April of 1983, and we

had our infamous dirty dozen — it developed into something like 24 or

26 or 30 pieces of legislation, but there were about 12 pieces that we

called the dirty dozen — there was a hue and cry from across this

province, from one end to the other, from everybody from every walk of

life. Educators, people in organized labour, students, teachers,

professional people, business people — everybody was concerned about

the initiatives that the government was taking, and we all claimed that

the government was using it as an ideological war, an attempt to get

even with their enemies, because some of the things that were being

done were just not rational and made no sense at all. There couldn't be

any valid, logical, sensitive, concerned reason for doing what the

government was doing, except to try to impose something, to subvert the

democratic process. We had 25,000 people standing on the lawn in front

of this Legislature at one time trying to get attention.

This is what I mean, Mr. Speaker. It's just not good enough for the

government to stand here and impose legislation. It's just not good

enough for the government to use rhetoric. Even the rhetoric, I

suggest, is getting slimmer and slimmer in the throne debate. Less and

less is being said. In any event, rhetoric in itself is an insult if

there is no opportunity for the people to participate.

[3:00]

The government has started an initiative which further demonstrates the lack

of confidence that the public has on behalf of a government that uses rhetoric.

They talked about "Let's Talk About Schools, " suggesting to the

people of British Columbia that they would have an opportunity to discuss in

detail all aspects of the public school system in terms of the scope of the

school system, what it was supposed to accomplish, what kind of experiences

young children were going to get in terms of employment opportunities, academic

development, social skills — in other words, the ability to survive in the workplace,

not just simply to survive but to be able to be constructively involved in the

socio-economic system. That has fallen somewhat as an exciting idea in the eyes

of the public, because the government is saying one thing and imposing its will,

despite what it's saying.

One of the opportunities that the government had in the throne

speech that it failed to expand upon — barely touching on one of the

most important topics in the world today — was an idea that was

introduced several years ago through the United Nations and was to be

supported in 1985: International Youth Year. I don't believe

International Youth Year has been fully appreciated by the people of

British Columbia. I don't think we understand what the opportunities

could be if we were to use this as an opportunity to inspire people.

I want to tell you what happened about International Youth Year in

the province of Manitoba compared to the province of British Columbia.

In the province of Manitoba last year, just by way of seed money, in

anticipation of this great opportunity to rally interest and to excite

some awareness of a group of people, which, incidentally, in British

Columbia represents almost half a million.... In the 1981 census there

were 490,610 people between the age of 15 and 24 living in British

Columbia.

[ Page 5153 ]

By the way, that particular group of people represents something

like 40 percent of the 16 percent unemployed in this province. In the

province of Manitoba they appropriated $250,000 last year in

preparation for the event. In addition, a $1.1 million budget was

provided, with a staff of ten. They are spending half a million dollars

for grants and projects. These funds are not for salaries or for

workshops at conferences; they are specific funds made available for

people to do their own thing. And the government is still paying its

fair share. There is a youth committee of 22 members appointed by the

cabinet to function as youth ambassadors of good will. These people

will be able to travel around the province and review projects and make

recommendations. In other words, it's a participatory approach by the

youth in Manitoba. They are given an opportunity to reflect upon the

situation and to feel relevant, to have a sense of meaning — that type

of participation, compared to the government making a rhetorical

announcement, and having little in the way of opportunities available

for the youth of British Columbia to actually get involved. To my

knowledge, the only real initiative that has happened in British

Columbia has been the designation of an advisory committee, without a

budget and without any real authority to initiate action in the

community.

Mr. Speaker, I'm really very sorry that the province has failed to

take advantage of an opportunity that has been provided by

International Youth Year. But who are the youth of British Columbia?

I'm sure that when I mention a figure of nearly half a million, I'm not

talking about an absolutely disadvantaged group of people. We're

talking about some people who come from wealthy families. Many have had

good educations and are the proud inheritors of family fortunes and

estates. Many of them are studying to go into professions. They are not

all destitute or disadvantaged. But they are all members of a group of

people who are viewed in a light other than as equal citizens. There

are those small numbers who become very large when you consider the

inequities in our system, when you stop and think of the ones who are

disadvantaged. It's a long list of people who fall into that category.

The demography of this province is changing day by day. It is estimated

that there will be only about 4 million people in that age range by the

end of this century, compared to 4.7 million today. As the minister of

universities pointed out, there is a decline in enrolment in schools.

There are many factors and reasons for that, but that doesn't change

the needs of those people who are here. We're not just dealing in

numbers; we're talking about people. Whether the scale goes up or down,

the quality is what we're concerned about. It's not dollars and cents.

It's consequences, because of neglect and failure, that we have to deal

with.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the demography is changing. It is not

a status quo. There are more and more people from visible minorities

who are making up the population — the so-called "ethnic community," of

which we are all members. But in terms of standards and the established

order of things, status quo usually excludes those people who are in

the visible minorities: new Canadians, the immigrants, the people who

who have some difficulty communicating and participating in the

marketplace, having access to the various services that are available

in society, and being able to compete equally. In other words,

statutorily we may say they have an equal opportunity, because it says

so right here in our bill of rights, in our new Canadian Charter of

Rights and Freedoms, which will soon be made available. It will be a

document that guarantees certain rights and freedoms. But you know, a

document is only as good as your ability to have access to it, only as

good as your ability to utilize it, to maximize those benefits. And you

know, in this province, that government, in its restraint program, cut

back on the access to the justice system and on access to these laws.

To get those equal opportunities, quite often you have to have legal

representation, you have to have the ability to protest, the ability to

appeal, the ability to make your case. Many of these people don't even

speak the language. They have no idea about what we're talking about.

But we can always say to them: "You have the right. You have an equal

right, provided you have the ability to use the facilities and the

resources that are available."

You know, there was a scam that was done on the labour movement in

the United States, and it still goes on today. We call it the

right-to-work syndrome. It's an approach to telling people that they

have the right to starve by separating themselves one by one. So we've

got to be careful when someone tells you about your rights. What we

want are results. I suspect that the results that we would like are

wanting under the government's new initiatives.

I wrote the Minister of Labour not too long ago and asked him to

indicate the plans that were going to be in place in supporting youth

employment and opportunities for youth during 1985. I did get a reply

back from the minister thanking me for my interest and concern and

telling me that his ministry will place increased emphasis on those

questions that I addressed. "Increased emphasis": that's got to be a

positive response. My problem is that the increase will be based on

last year's contribution, which was wanting. I'm concerned that the

ministry, in all its good intentions, should survey the situation and

the need. Why doesn't the government invest in a task force on youth

led by youth to go around this province and find out what the needs

are, and for the government to have a resolve and a commitment to try

and do something about it?

We have so many people in this province who care about the province,

but who cannot got involved. They can vote federally by the time they

are 18, but in this province they can't vote until they are 19, just as

a small point. In the province of British Columbia you are told that if

you are 24 years of age you don't have the same rights as someone 25

years of age, unless you are the head of a family, but as an individual

you are going to be discriminated against. These kinds of things that

go on all the time, abuses.... It was only a few years ago that we

finally got the law changed with respect to discrimination against

young people because of driving. If you were 25 years of age, prior to

1972, as you remember, the assigned risk program under the private

automobile insurance.... We got that changed a decade later to the

point where a driver was responsible for his actions, and it could not

be passed on to someone next to him because they were of the same age.

In other words, we got away from the actuarial rationale about all of

them in the same category, just to charge them all the same thing and

treat them all the same. We are now beginning to realize that these

people are individuals.

What incentive can there be for a young person to try to be a good

citizen, to try to live by the standards that we set down, suggested by

our educators as good lines of direction for them to follow, when

they're not going to receive the respect, the rewards and the

opportunities? It's disillusioning

[ Page 5154 ]

and discouraging and in some cases an insult to

their intelligence for us to take that approach. We all know that, Mr.

Speaker, but why don't we resolve to go that extra step and start

listening? What are we afraid of? Why can't we listen to the youth? Why

don't we put them on the spot and look at them eyeball to eyeball and

say: "Okay, look, let's cut out the dilly-dallying around. You need a

job, you want to know about your future, you're tired of being uptight,

you're afraid of a nuclear holocaust somewhere down the line, you don't

trust our judgment. What are your thoughts?"

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

If we think that the youth are so important for the future and they

are, then why don't we equip them so that they can do the job? What do

we expect them to do — all of a sudden just become brilliant,

emotionally mature, stable, confident, committed to the system that has

been shafting them all along? What are they supposed to do? We're going

to raise animals, the kind of competitors who cut the throat of their

neighbour and everybody else in order to survive, because there is no

sensitivity in this system the way it is. I think it's a shame.

[3:15]

It's a shame that in that throne speech there was no sincere

recognition of the youth of this province, no sincere commitment to

them and no initiative. We have a government that gives gratuitous

statements to the federal House about how we're all for it, we support

you, we believe that you're going the right way, and you have all of

our sympathy, but we have no money. Now there is a government, if there

ever was one, that knows the value of a dollar. What dollars are we

spending on the youth?

The Minister of State for Youth, the Hon. Andree Champagne, was in

the province recently, and she said that of our national budget of $24

million that had been set aside in a special program for youth during

the Year of Youth, $12 million had been siphoned off in various

ministries, so we only have $12 million left; but of that, $4 million

was needed for administration and for projects that took place across

Canada. Of the $8 million that was remaining, British Columbia received

$302,150. Now you say: "What's the point? It's not our fault; that's

the feds." The point is, have you made a protest? Have any of those

ministers gone to Ottawa and said: "What's the idea of insulting us

like this? What's going on?"

This

article states that "...and that, going by the 1981 census,

adds up to $1.62 for each of the 490,610 British Columbia residents

between the ages of 15 and 24, just about enough to buy them a doughnut

and a cup of coffee." That was in the Vancouver Sun , February 9, 1985. It's pretty obvious where the government's priorities are.

We're talking about cooperation, consultation in the sense of

commonness, a common purpose despite our political differences, Mr.

Speaker. You know, it's about time. As an MLA I'm tired of being

offended by the public when they say: "All you politicians are the

same." I don't like that. I didn't go through university to be insulted

for the rest of my life, trying to do my job for the system. But

they're right: we have a great deal of energy when it comes to

attacking one another, but when it comes to dealing with the problems

of the people in this province.... When we try to sit down and talk,

try to find some room to play politics outside of direct service to the

people so that we can get on with helping the province, all we get are

stalls. "Well, we'll take a look at it. You're not really serious. We

can't quite do it." We're the same people who would stand up and say:

"We hope the peace talks are going to be successful." We can't even

talk to our youth. Listen to what the youth have to say. I've got a

long list of concerns that youth have. Everyone knows what that list is.

There is a paragraph here that I think might help to focus on the

kinds of concerns that the youth have. It's called "The transition

period in life," a period that I suggest is critical. The statistics

are very revealing for the young people in the age range between 15 and

24. One of the problems identified by studies is that in Canada the

transition from school to work has not been dealt with. Formal

education, training and work experience have been kept separate. Young

people attending school receive little or no practical employment

experience and relatively little vocational training. There is a

growing awareness in some European countries of the need to combine

theoretical instruction with practical experience to smooth the

transition from school to work. It mentions countries like Germany and

Denmark where experiments are going on to try to rationalize these

massive expenditures of moneys in the school system which are not

yielding the kinds of results we need because of a lack of vision, of

not recognizing the need for planning in getting off this horse that

we've been riding into the ground called "free enterprise,"

"laissez-faire," "do your own thing," "we cannot afford it." Every

intelligent person knows we cannot afford it. Let's forget about who

had the wisdom to see it.

We need to plan. We need to know where we're going. No one who is

serious spends capital in a business without getting feasibility

studies, without some kind of prospectus and consultation, without

investing a large amount of money to find out what is going on before

they invest, including advertising, sampling or surveying. But what do

we do? You bring in a budget. Who have you talked to? Your political

friends. You're telling us about this budget that's going to come in.

Will you be able to say that before you brought it in, several standing

committees went around the province and talked to the people on a

non-partisan basis, the basis upon which we should be getting our

information, or will you be restricted to the Fraser Institute? You're

not kidding anyone.

We know what can and should be done, and what must be done if we're

going to get anywhere. The people of British Columbia turn their backs

on this process, because we have not had the courage to face what we

all know we've got to do. There's no reason why British Columbia cannot

be the leader in the Pacific Rim. There's no reason why we can't lead

the world in all kinds of ways: culturally, in our economic system, in

the happiness that people have in their lives because of their access

to the amenities, the so-called good life. There's no reason why not,

but we'll have to have a little more confidence in the human spirit.

I have here the labours of some very good researchers who have

outlined the problems that youth face. These are all documented.

They're in the library, and we can all go and read them. We talk about

poverty, the statistics on the people in that age range who are hard

done by. We know who they are. The thing is, those are the people who

can least defend themselves, who are least articulate as far as the

political system is concerned, and the ones we're least concerned about

electorally; so they get short shrift. It's as simple as that. But when

they begin to mobilize, when we begin to

[ Page

5155 ]

equip them and they begin to understand that they

are relevant, that there is something to this democratic idea about

everyone's vote counting, then I think the politicians will be much

more useful to them and we'll have a lot more honesty and resolve. We

have the intelligence, the experience and ability, but we do not always

apply it the way we should.

The people of British Columbia need us. Why don't we resolve to

follow the example of the Leader of the Opposition, who said: "I am

going to cooperate with the government if we have to drag them all the

way." The people of British Columbia are demanding it, and we need it.

I can see, Mr. Speaker, that you're giving me the high sign. I will

be voting against the throne speech. Although it's high on rhetoric,

it's short on specifics.

HON. MR. PELTON: Before I start, I would like to compliment

the first member for Vancouver Centre on his speech. I always enjoy

listening to what he has to say and the way he says it, so I'm not

going to go through the usual routine and take exception to anything

that he said, but I have one or two things that I would like to say

myself.

It's with very great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the

Speech from the Throne. British Columbians today have confidence and

optimism in the future of their province. The initiatives outlined in

the throne speech will further boost that optimism. I am fully

confident that our government is helping to lead our province as we

stand on the right track to economic renewal. The growing spirit of

partnership and cooperation between our provincial government and the

federal government, as exemplified by the recently signed ERDA

agreement, is bringing together not only our municipal and provincial

governments in productive initiatives but also British Columbia's

employers and employees. We all must work together, putting aside our

differences, to advance our opportunities for increased prosperity. The

opposition has a responsibility to propose concrete, specific measures

to meet the challenges our province faces. We welcome their commitment

to abandoning personal attacks in favour of positive, cooperative

dialogue. This, Mr. Speaker, is a responsibility of each member of this

House.

There are many positive and optimistic developments taking place

throughout our province. A number of my colleagues on the government

side have already talked about the initiatives contributing to the

economic growth in their own constituencies. They have illustrated

vividly the new economic activity, new businesses, new jobs and

individual expressions of confidence by our people in our province and

its promise. Yet our full potential has not yet been reached, and it

never can be until all British Columbians seeking jobs find productive,

meaningful work. It is government's job to create the right economic

climate in which individuals and businesses can thrive and grow. Each

burst of growth brings another, with its new economic activities and

new jobs.

Confidence builds on confidence. Renewed confidence is active today. There

are investors both in and out of the province putting money to work in British

Columbia right now. Many will come and look at our province before, during and

after Expo. Through initiatives outlined in the throne speech and other positive

initiatives yet to come, those looking to beautiful British Columbia will find

a government that listens and understands the needs of small business people

and investors, a government looking for ways to encourage and attract job creation

and economic development. The government views investors as entrepreneurs who

are coming forward to risk their money to create jobs, and to better their own

lives and those of their employees and their customers.

A profitable business means jobs for British Columbians. It means

economic growth. It means tax revenues for governments. Economic

success does not compete with our social programs. It sustains and

improves the quality of our health care, our education and of our

social assistance programs. The best goal of government is to raise the

living standard of all citizens — those in need and those supporting

themselves and their families.

Jobs are created by both large and small businesses. Both foster

economic activity and consumer spending in complement to each other.

The jobs created by large industries aren't just at the plant itself.

You inevitably find a wide variety of small businesses springing up all

around most large projects or industrial operations. This spinoff

effect feeds on our optimism and confidence, Mr. Speaker. The only

limit to our economic growth in large and small business is our

creativity and faith in ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point to five examples of cooperation

turning into a success story in my own constituency of Dewdney. We have

a new and exciting industry in Maple Ridge which will certainly bring

long-term benefits not only for Maple Ridge but for the Fraser Valley

and all of the province. Our new industry is Moli Energy Ltd., which

will produce a revolutionary new type of battery. The development of

these new batteries resulted from research work done right here in our

province by a team of University of British Columbia scientists. Our

provincial Social Credit government provided financing through the B.C.

Development Corporation and the Science Council of British Columbia in

support of this research. Because of the dedication and ultimate

success of that team of scientists and because of the support of the

government, Moli now has a two-year jump over its multinational

competitors and rivals in Japan and the United States.

Approximately 250 new jobs and hundreds of spinoff jobs will be

created. Moli will generate a $5 million annual payroll with the

product's multimillion dollar potential. The spinoff benefits will be

extensive. One of the first spinoff benefits will be going to Kamloops,

where a related processing plant will be located.

[3:30]

We have seen the spirit of partnership bring success with the Moli

Energy discovery. Recently our Premier spoke of the signing of the

ten-year economic and regional development agreement with Ottawa. That

agreement will greatly serve in the new economic growth of British

Columbia, in the development of job-creating investment in our

industries, in forestry, in mining, tourism, agriculture and science

and technology. ERDA will contribute in visible and positive ways.

In my constituency of Dewdney there are many other positive examples

of cooperation. Work has started on a new courthouse and police station

complex in Maple Ridge. While work on construction of the police

station is well underway and should be completed this summer, it is

hoped the courthouse construction will begin shortly. I should point

out that most of the people working on the $2 million police building

are Maple Ridge residents.

Even though there are limited funds for capital spending in education, we have seen the construction of the Hillside

[ Page 5156 ]

Elementary School in Mission, for which I presented

the community's case of a demonstrable need. I and the Ministry of

Education totally agree that schools service the people, and that the

demand for schooling should determine the supply rather than the supply

of schooling itself determining our education policies.

Among our business communities in both Maple Ridge and Mission we

have the downtown revitalization programs. The city of Mission had the

official opening last fall. The Maple Ridge revitalization should be

completed by this spring. It is initiatives such as these, Mr. Speaker,

that show what cooperation between the provincial government and the

municipal government and the business community can bring.

In the Maple Ridge project, there are some 119 merchants

participating; some 15,000 man-hours of work are involved. The total

cost of the project is about $300,000. In the spirit of partnership

with the municipality of Maple Ridge the provincial government has

provided a $225,000 low-interest loan on this downtown revitalization

program. In Mission 106 merchants participated, with very many person

hours of work involved; it was a $302,000 project. Once again the

provincial government provided a $237,000 low-interest loan. I'm sure

the revitalization of the downtown areas will benefit the citizens of

both Maple Ridge and Mission as new businesses open and the existing

downtown merchants attract new customers.

The constituency of Dewdney is growing. Many new subdivisions have

opened up in the past two years, and in several cases they have been

completely filled. Our local developers and builders are now looking

for new areas to develop to keep up with the demand.

This growth is also reflected in what is happening to our Maple

Ridge Community Credit Union. In the 1983-84 fiscal year they spent

some $450,000 on capital projects in Maple Ridge, and some $50,000 in

the community of Pitt Meadows. The credit union doubled the size of the

Maple Ridge office, with the expanded premises officially opening in

October 1983. To better serve Pitt Meadows customers the credit union

opened a branch there in January 1984. That year was a good one for the

credit union, as they increased their assets by more than $11 million,

and gained 1,666 new members for a total of more than 13,000. With six

employees at Pitt Meadows and 40 at Maple Ridge the credit union is now

involved in business loans and again increasing staff. They have

increased by 15 percent their loans to businesses and individuals. As

well, deposits by their members have increased by 16 percent.

Mr. Speaker, we're hearing many examples of the entrepreneurial

spirit. An individual sees an opportunity and risks his or her own

dollars to fill that need, and in so doing creates employment. There

are numerous examples, and one involves an outfit called Mr. Sparks, an

electrical automotive repairman. In April 1982, in the midst of the

recession, Mr. Sparks moved from a small outlet on the Lougheed Highway

to larger premises on 227th Street in Maple Ridge. By early 1984 the

business had grown not only from doing more service work but also from

building parts. Mr. Sparks now plans to update machinery, add a

computer system and open a second shop.

There is other good news. The Mary Hill bypass will soon be

completed, thus providing Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows with better

access to and from work and home. When I was the mayor of Maple Ridge,

I actively supported completion of the bypass. As a result of further

community involvement, my own efforts and those of my colleague, the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks), we were able to

announce last month that the hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser)

will include construction of two bridges connecting the bypass in his

annual budget. If the Treasury Board approves the expenditure, possibly

around $10 million, the structures could go to tender within a month or

so, and barring any delays, the bridges could be completed by the

year's end. Being the optimist that I am, I believe the project could

prove very important in attracting industry and business people to the

Dewdney area.

I am also pleased that our hon. Highways minister has worked with

those of us in Dewdney to get the Albion ferry service

schedule

revised. This ferry will be, you might be interested to know, the first

ferry on the continent to run on natural gas.

Other good news for Dewdney came when our hon. Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) informed me last summer that the Assessment Authority

office in Maple Ridge would remain in operation as before,

Mr. Speaker, the spirit of cooperation brings the people of British

Columbia together to face our common challenges — the good result of

reasoned, respectful debate, which we as Canadians can rightfully claim

as one of our best traits. This was clearly illustrated last year when

I had the pleasure of speaking on behalf of the hon. Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) at the British Columbia School Trustees'

Association annual general meeting. I would like to share with you just

a portion of a letter that I received from Bill Lefeaux-Valentine, the

president of the BCSTA:

"You have taken the time to discover the issues, and

you offered a perspective on them that was very useful. Let me say that

I particularly appreciate and agree with your call for an end to

confrontation. We are trying to contribute to unified effort and

cooperation in the field of education with our 1986 World Congress on

Education and Technology. Your government's agreement with the venture

and its generous support was deeply appreciated. The spontaneous

applause that your announcement received is echoed by all members of

the association. Thank you."

Mr. Speaker, I've taken great pride today in pointing out how

cooperation and partnership between the provincial and municipal

governments, government and private enterprise and employers and

employees has benefited the province and, in particular, the people of

my constituency. The throne speech which, as a member of the government

side of the House I also take pride in, further advances that spirit

which we have seen at work throughout the province. It leads the way

for increased communication and cooperation, especially between the

provincial government and municipal governments. That partnership I

firmly hold to be the most crucial one in bettering our economy and our

people's quality of life. Local issues may not be very glamorous, but

leadership and vision in our communities provides the bread-and-butter

progress that all of us — individuals, families, neighbours — share in

common. Our government has shown in the throne speech a strong

commitment to working in partnership with our local communities to

attract and develop business opportunities, to create jobs, and to

supply the expertise and support to advance special projects.

[ Page

5157 ]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues to know that the

government's efforts are believed in and appreciated by the people of

Dewdney.

MR. STRACHAN: I would ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: In our galleries today are Mr. Peter Forrest

from Prince George and, from the great community of Bednesti Lake, Mr.

Jim Gibson. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I see a bright future for B.C. I

really do, despite what my good old friend was talking about a few

minutes ago. I see a bright future for B.C. Let me outline what that

future is. At long last the Socreds are entirely without credibility.

The province can look forward to an NDP government for sure next time.

And if anything tells us that, it has to be this throne speech that we

have just had visited upon us. There are some deathbed repentance

statements in there — there's no question about it. But Mr. Speaker,

you go across this province.... I have often said that New Westminster

is a microcosm of B.C., and I've been around that town and many other

towns, particularly over the last few months, watching the Socreds'

credibility crumble slowly but surely, even in the most unexpected

places. Places that I have known for years to be the forefront of the

Socred support are no longer in that particular category, and that

happens to apply in every constituency in this province.

Nothing that has happened to date has given any kind of confidence

to the people in this province in that government over there. That

government has put us into the most unusual position in this province

of being the last province in Canada in terms of any way of calculating

just what that might mean economically.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the people can look forward to B.C. getting back on the

rails. They can look forward to that because we have a constitution

that says there must be an election within a five-year period. So the

people don't have to live with them any longer than another two-odd

years. Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, we're assured of that now.

Let me outline a few criticisms I have. One could take almost every

word of this throne speech and criticize it. They talk about economic

renewal on the second page of this throne speech. They say something

along the lines that British Columbians having shared the adversity of

the international recession.... We shared it? We had a monopoly on it.

It's been over in most jurisdictions across North America, but here we

are, not only sharing it but having it all to ourselves. Now that's

leadership. That's monumental leadership. Sharing an international

recession indeed!

[3:45]

What we should have done in this province.... The minister who just

left suggested that there should be statements outlining our direction

from time to time from the opposition. We had that this morning from

the Leader of the Opposition. He spelled it out better, I believe, than

I have heard it spelled out for years in this House from anybody. But

in any event, had this government been thoughtful when the recession

really got going, instead of that monumental speech on, I believe,

February 18, 1982, that told us the direction we were going to go and

all that restraint and belt-tightening that was going to

happen.... We should have embarked upon a way to defeat the

recession then instead of pouring gasoline on the flames, which is

precisely what we have done.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the proof of the pudding is in

the eating, because where are we? At that point in history we had an

unemployment of 8.4 percent, and now we're over 16 percent. Marvellous

track record now that we're in line with poor old Newfoundland, which

has never gotten out of their first recession.

Mr. Speaker, this province doesn't deserve what it has undergone. I

go back to the throne speech: "Having restrained public sector costs

and thus preventing the buildup of massive debt...." and on and on it

goes. Well, we didn't. By pulling in that belt so tight, we incurred

larger debts than we would have otherwise done. We impoverished people

in this province like no other government has ever done. We

impoverished them to the extent that they couldn't pay taxes and so

couldn't pay the debts of the province. To indicate even lightly that

we haven't incurred massive debts is beyond reason. I won't go back to

1975 when we had no public debt whatsoever in terms of our operating

budget. But just go back to the outset of this "restraint" time, and

we'll find that we've more than doubled our debt since then, including

Crown corporations.

Then we get to the next part and talk about new challenges. This is

an impressive document if you just read the titles. Go from one page to

another: New Challenges, Renewal Initiatives, The Forest Picture, and

so forth. But the context of the speech doesn't give us anything to

rejoice about. Under "New Challenges" we say: "As British Columbia

continues to adjust and position itself within the next global

economy...." Let's analyze that for a second. We understand that the

recession was over some time ago in other jurisdictions, particularly

in the United States. Now we're told by a lot of economists that our

expectation in this "global economy" might be another recession. Are we

to be in a position where we don't recover from one before we get into

another? We should have been on the road to recovery at the outset,

rather than after it's over and waiting for the next to occur.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we do have a tremendous potential in this

province. As the throne speech indicates, it's limitless, and it's

because of our people and our natural resources — fresh water and

energy. What have we been doing with these resources? We have been

limiting their use by virtue of the fact that the government has pulled

in that belt so tightly there is no possible way to harness them. They

talk about harnessing the skills and talents of our people. Again this

word "partnership." In terms of harnessing the skills and talents of

our people, we heard today that the president of the University of

British Columbia has resigned. That man turned down the presidency of

the University of Toronto to come here. He could have gone from SFU to

the University of Toronto, and a British Columbian at that. He could

have gone to that major university in Toronto, yet turned them down

because of the opportunity to go to UBC. Now, because of.... I've no

doubt that his reason for leaving is the constant barrage of cuts that

has hit that university, and we're talking here about harnessing skills

and talents? I understand that he's going to a smaller university —

Western. That's

[ Page 5158 ]

quite a comedown from the University of Ontario. I

bet he's wondering now whether or not he made a mistake. I don't think

he's wondering at all.

It goes on with renewal initiatives in the next paragraph, talking

about training "our young people for new opportunities." If you turn to

page 9 — just a little bit at the end of page 8 — what do we find?

"Excellence in higher education." That really says an awful lot. The

title's good enough, because it gives absolutely no words that one can

use as comfort or with confidence that there is actually going to be

any improvement in that particular area. It talks about a scholarship

program. Isn't that marvellous? They cancelled all the student loans

and grants, and now they're talking about a scholarship program. That

might appeal to an elitist like the minister of science and technology,

but what about the ordinary people who have to go to university, and

that's their only way of getting in and proceeding with their education

so that they can in fact be those young people to look after the

opportunities of the future? We're denying them that. My colleague

says: "That's leadership." It's the kind of government that this

province needs to get away from, and will get away from very shortly.

When they call the election, this government will be finished — not

only finished, but finished forever. Once the Socreds go down in flames

the next time, they will be gone forever, and with justification. They

will go back to their original reserves — the Liberals and the

Conservatives. They will never fly again as Socreds. They've ruined

that name. What little image they did have is gone now.

Mr. Speaker, this goes on on page 9 to talk about employment

training. We've heard all about employment training; we've heard that

employment training is just not happening. All we have to do is look at

BCIT, which is the heart of technological training in this province —

cut, cut, cut, program after program. Are there a few MLAs around here?

If there are, I imagine you get some letters; and if you get some

letters, I imagine you're getting some letters from BCIT outlining the

cuts in that important program. You know we get them from time to time,

from day to day, but those cuts have been going on for some time — to

the point that BCIT has been very badly damaged.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What program? The whole health program there has

been absolutely mired into the ground. The lab program there, as you

perfectly well know, has been badly hurt. Every program at BCIT has to

suffer because of the budget cuts. When that member wants to get up and

make a few presentations about how great it is.... He might even make

his presentation about PVI, and that's as shameful as anything I've

ever seen. Talk about irrelevant education in terms of job training!

This is the kind of throne speech which, if one were to read it carefully,

would tend to spoil one's supper. Under the forest picture I see that I'm

advised our important forest industry continues to face increasingly competitive

markets, blah, blah, blah. Let me tell you what some of those things have done.

I listened to the member for Dewdney (Hon. Mr. Pelton) tell us about 250 jobs.

I've heard it described as 40 and 80 and 250, whatever it is — nice new

industry. All those folks are going to be employed in Dewdney. I hope they take

the 150 employees from Lamford Cedar in New Westminster that just closed down.

I hope they take the people from Timberland — 200 jobs that are going down the

drain on June 1. That's 350 jobs in a matter of just a few months. And that's

just the larger ones. We see in this province a bankruptcy rate which is 300

percent higher than that of any other province.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of throne speech that should have been

written by a government that really had a new direction. Unfortunately

it wasn't. But there will be an NDP throne speech read in this House in

the not too distant future. That throne speech will give the first

direction this province has seen for years.

I'm embarrassed when I go home and I have to face the people and

tell them Lamford Cedar may never see the light of day again, and those

150 jobs with it. Timberland as well — another 200 jobs. Yet I hear

them talking over there about harnessing this marvellous human resource

of ours. Where will those people go for retraining? Will they go to

PVI, or will they go to BCIT, or will they go on unemployment insurance

and ultimately social welfare?

[4:00]

I'm not going to deal very much with that coal export business. It's

just been a great big embarrassment. Why would the government even put

that in a throne speech — anything about coal? Surely coal is one of

the biggest embarrassments of this province. Debt, debt, and for what?

To compete with ourselves so that the Japanese have us whipsawed. They

can say: "Well, look, we're not going to pay this for that when we can

get it cheaper down there" — and back and forth. It's bad enough that

we have to compete with the rest of the world, but now we've decided we

want to compete with ourselves. Mr. Speaker, I think they should have

left that out entirely.

Now I get to this marvellous commissioner of critical industries.

I'll give you a suggestion for that commissioner: give it to Ed Peck.

He's underemployed; he's got nothing to do. He never did have anything

to do. He shouldn't have had anything to do in this province, where we

believe in freedom in labour negotiations. In other jurisdictions in

this country, where they haven't had an Ed Peck, they've been getting

the same kinds of agreements that we've got here — with better

economics, the same kinds of agreements. The member over there shakes

his head.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not true.

MR. COCKE: Take a look at the facts. It's absolutely true. As

an aside, it was lucky that they canned him off the transit board.

Finally the transit commissioners signed a contract. It took them a

long time, but they got it back on the track.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He derailed it.

This new czar, I gather, will be the person who will report to our new traveling salesman. Probably all of us have seen the B.C. Business Bulletin

for the month of March. It has reported on the grassroots businessman.

There's a picture of the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), the new minister of gigantic industry and selling B.C. all

over the place. There are two pictures here that are appropriate. He's

standing under a "for sale" sign. "B.C. is for sale," he's telling the

world. We've always known that. It's ironic that this grassroots

businessman is carrying parsley. He's doesn't even know grass from

parsley, and he goes over to

[ Page

5159 ]

Japan, Europe or someplace else to try to sell parsley instead of grass.

It could be that he could get us into a good deal of trouble. Let me

tell you why he can get us into a good deal of trouble. This is the

kind of thing that he is quoted as saying: "The other provinces all

criticized us when we were the first ones to begin the restraint

programs. Now they're doing it. Well, we've got our spending in order."

Would you listen to that! The other provinces saw the error in the

way.... Look at Manitoba and the difference between Manitoba and B.C.,

where their unemployment rate is down at the bottom of the country.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member over there says the government of

Manitoba may be going down the tube. I can guarantee that for this

government. I can guarantee that the Socreds are finished as a party

and as a group governing the province forever. They will all go

burrowing back to their old happy hunting grounds. There will be

Liberals, and there will be Conservatives, but the Socreds will be dead

and gone forever. Thankfully for the people of B.C., this party, the

NDP, will finally be able to reconstruct the province for the good of

the people.

They want us to talk about our federal role here. They tell us what

a marvellous thing it was that they got the amendments to the Foreign

Investment Review Act and the changes in the national energy program.

Let me tell you what they are saying: they agree with those giveaways.

They say to themselves: "Well, heck, we've always been handmaidens to

the United States of America. Why not let's go back to that? Why not

let's just give them everything we've got?" That's exactly the

direction of the Socreds — and, with a little hesitancy, I must admit,

of the federal Conservatives. While the federal Conservatives have

their heads in the same kind of unrealistic economic world that these

people do, at least they have the political sense to realize that you

don't wreck a country in order to prove some theories. These people,

the Socreds, have wrecked this province in order to prove that what the

Fraser Institute said was right. What they've proven for ever and a day

is that the Fraser Institute was wrong.

One thing I love to see is when Brian Mulroney is asked a question

about B.C. He does the fastest shuffle, the sweetest dance, of anybody

I've ever seen. He distances himself so quickly from this Social Credit

government that you'd think he was in a 100-yard dash. Not arm's length

— no, he runs as fast as his legs can carry him away from any kind of

stigma that he might get from being associated in any way, shape or

form with this government.

The Vancouver Island pipeline. We've got that announcement again in this throne speech. Aren't we all thrilled?

MR. VEITCH: Have some faith.

MR. COCKE: "Have some faith, " the member says. How many

times have we seen this announcement — always contingent, however, upon

something. Mr. Speaker, it's stalled and will continue to be stalled. I

think what the Leader of the Opposition did this morning was very

useful. He was talking about alternatives to this pipeline that may or

may not happen within our lifetime or within our children's lifetime.

In any event, Vancouver Island needs inexpensive energy now. They don't

need to wait for the next 10, 20, or 50 years. They need it now.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to go very much further in this speech,

because I'm going to let some of my colleagues do some of the rest of

it. But I'd just like to say that it would be nice if we could conserve

jobs. Again we've got this new technology and talking about Moli Energy

and so on and so forth, but I just say, wouldn't it have been nice if

we could have conserved jobs rather than creating those new jobs? I

like the idea of creating the new jobs, but wouldn't it be nice if we

could keep our people working rather than letting them go down the tube?

I would just like to say one or two words about ICBC while I've got

a second. Selling off general insurance was one of the worse things

that could have been done by this government — absolutely a stupid

move. It was a paying proposition, it keeps the rest of the industry

honest in terms of rates and so on, and it provides coverage for

formerly uncovered areas; people in the north and in the outlying areas

know that as well as I do. There were days when they couldn't get

coverage and there will be those days again. It's a good adjunct to

auto insurance because you use personnel to the best advantage. What a

stupid business mistake to make!

WCB. I'm going to spend some more time on that in the budget. I think that rehab cuts of 15 percent were crazy.

I'd just like to say one word about New Westminster. Our waterfront

has been under development as long as that new Social Credit government

has been in existence — ever since 1976 — and it has been a disaster.

Jimmy Pattison is coming along to help bail them out. I hope it works.

He's announced a market down there — a building and one thing and

another. I really hope it works. You've got a long way to go.

Another thing I'd like to say just before I'm finished: the ALRT has

disrupted a lot of small business along lower Columbia and downtown. I

hope that ALRT will at least reimburse those small businesses rather

than drive them to the brink of bankruptcy, for the amount of economic

pain and suffering that they've had to bear.

I see that the light has gone red. I'll have to do the rest under

the budget or somewhere else. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your

patience, and I hope everybody recognizes that I'm not going to vote

for this particular motion that's before this House.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster,

speaking for the official opposition, faces us with a frightening

prospect. Big government, he says, is inevitable, and in the form of

the NDP it would indeed be frightening. Led by a welfare statist with a

state socialist as his principal lieutenant — I'm referring to the

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) — it would drive

business out of the province. It certainly would lend to our problem of

unemployment. It would increase the number of people without jobs. It

would be the opposite to growth. It would remove the engine which

basically provides the income from which our social services are

financed.

Traditionally in the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, as you

know, the members rise and congratulate the Speaker. I want to

congratulate you for your election as Deputy Speaker and congratulate

also my colleague from North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) on his

election as chairman of the Committee of the Whole House.

It also gives me an opportunity to get a concern of mine off my chest. I am concerned about big government. I am

[ Page 5160 ]

concerned about big businesses that are unregulated

monopolies. I am concerned about big labour that tends to run roughshod

over the interests of the majority of the population. And so bigness

concerns me — and big government most of all.

I'm concerned, to be explicit, about the growth of the executive in

this chamber. I think the executive is too large. We have one master —

that is, most of us — and that master is our constituents, those who

voted for us, those whom we serve. But those who are members of the

executive serve two masters. The members of the executive — and I'm

talking about the Premier and members of the cabinet and, currently, by

extension, parliamentary secretaries, who have to observe secrecy in

respect to at least some areas of government — have another master.

[4:15]

1 think it is unfortunate in any Legislature when the members of the

executive — who serve two masters, not just one — make up 50 percent or

more of the membership of the House. I think that is fundamentally

wrong. I have said that before in this chamber, and I repeat it.

Presumably when the number of seats in this House increases to 66,

the executive on its present scale will not make up 50 percent of the

House. But it today can not only dictate to the House, in the sense of

bringing in bills which no one sees until they're prepared, but it has

the power within its own membership to pass that legislation, and I

think that's wrong. I don't know of another chamber in the

parliamentary tradition, at least, where the combined membership of the

executive is larger than the remnant of independent MLAs or Members of

Parliament in the chamber. I think that's fundamentally wrong and it

concerns me.

I have spoken in favor of a smaller cabinet, and I think that in the

context of this chamber a smaller cabinet makes eminent sense. When I

was first a member of the federal cabinet, we had 21 members — there

are 21 members of the cabinet in this chamber — and yet we had a House

of 265. We had a backbench of 120. Clearly the executive, including the

parliamentary secretaries — and that executive incidentally had ten

parliamentary secretaries — could not outvote the rest of the House. It

couldn't come close. In fact, it was made up of the order of 10 percent

of the membership of the Legislature or Parliament — House of Commons,

in that case.

I think, therefore, that we've recently witnessed a development in

this chamber which I hope will be reversed. I believe the executive

must be small. I include as part of the executive, obviously, in my

comments, parliamentary secretaries, who I see can take questions, can

attend cabinet committee meetings, and can deliver speeches for

ministers as required. Their travel and secretarial needs can be

assumed through the minister's budget, and they can make no statements

to the press on ministry business. Indeed they can make no statements

in the House on ministry business. Therefore I include parliamentary

secretaries as pseudo-ministers, as part of the executive and as part

of my concern. I think I've expressed again — and, I hope, clearly —

what that concern is; and I hope that that trend, which has recently

developed, will be reversed in British Columbia, and certainly in this

Legislature.

Now I want to go on to talk about interventionism in its other forms. Obviously

the opposition, were it to form the government, would be interventionist. The

Leader of the Opposition, speaking today, talked about a blueprint, a plan a

longer-term plan as well as short-term plans.

Those who take the opposite point of view.... And I certainly do; I

regard small as beautiful, and big government-owned corporations, big

corporations regulated by government and supported by big unions, as

anathema. The hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds),

in the early part of his address, talked about individualism. The basic

philosophy which has been endorsed time and again in this country and

generally in the United States, and certainly in this province, is

individualistic. We should contain big government, regulate big

companies and keep large unions under control. I think that's the

opinion of most people in this province.

I'm for non-intervention by government. In the interests of

protecting the freedoms of the individual, I would regulate, restrict

some of the freedoms of large monopolies, private and public. I would

certainly limit, in a similar fashion, the activities of large unions,

which generally speaking are not concerned about the interests of

people who are not members of the union; and generally speaking,

nonmembers of the union are the majority of the population.

There is a reference in the Speech from the Throne to a commissioner

of critical industries. We'll undoubtedly hear more about that person,

that function. That's interventionist, in my view, and I'm concerned.

I'm concerned that a single individual, presumably non-elected, would

have powers which I would have preferred to be powers solely in the

hands of ministers, or a minister, if we have to have one person; but a

person who nevertheless has to be elected from time to time, who has to

get the support of his or her constituents. So I'm concerned about a

czar of industry, a czar who presumably overlooks not just the

responsibilities of one minister but that of several: the Ministry of

Forests, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and, of

course, the Ministry of Industry and Small Business. It certainly

concerns me.

I would much rather that the government create an environment. I

know that in this speech and in other statements the government has

said that it wishes to create an environment which is favourable to

more economic activity, certainly to individual initiative, to the

growth of small business. That can be done by lowering taxes in some

areas in this province. We have, generally speaking, the highest level

of taxes on economic activity of any of the provinces in Canada today,

and we must concern ourselves about that. We can — I believe we must —

reduce the level of taxation as it impinges on small business. I think

we should give consideration to a step recently taken by Ontario: a

tax-free period for brand new firms, in Ontario's case three years. I

think too that instead of giving large grants to a few firms, or

preferential tax treatment to a few companies in particular

circumstances, we should give assistance, if indeed assistance is

desirable.... I would prefer that government stay right out of the

marketplace, but if assistance is indeed desirable, give it uniformly

to all firms — for instance, a grant. I'll call it a grant; it's really

paying a part of the salary or wage of an engineer or an accountant,

people of particular competence, so that a firm of any size could

employ one of those kinds of people for new development. Let the firm

worry about whether the person is properly employed; let that firm

provide the housing, the equipment and so on. So the firm would have a

stake in the best utilization of that individual's time. But spread it

around.

[ Page 5161 ]

High tech, generally speaking.... Certainly the experience in the

United States is that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the new

ideas, the inventions, the developments which are characterized as high

tech originate with small and medium-sized firms. Some of those firms

may eventually become large firms, or they may be swallowed up by

larger firms; but the initiative, the incentive and certainly the

relevance of high-tech development is often determined by small firms

close to the people, close to the marketplace. If we have to give

assistance, that's the kind of assistance I would give.

It isn't generally realized, but one of the reasons for a high level

of unemployment in this province, particularly in the construction

trades — the hardhat endeavours — is the fact that B.C. Hydro, still by

far the biggest corporation in western Canada, has virtually folded its

tents. It has stopped investing; it has stopped building. A few years

ago B.C. Hydro employed as many as 12,000 British Columbians, and

through contracts many more. Now its employee membership is down to

under 8,000 and still declining. It has not only been laying off

thousands of people who are highly trained with unique skills, but many

of the companies which it formally contracted are no longer finding any

work building dams, transmission lines, access roads or distribution

systems in this province. B.C. Hydro has stopped being a force.

Hopefully we'll have some developments to take its place, preferably,

in my view, from the private sector. From the public and private sector

we do have the railway, with big plans. The joint plans of the CNR and

CPR over the next few years total about $6 billion, several times the

scale of northeast coal. I hope nothing holds up those plans so that

those big corporations can at least employ more British Columbians,

many of them of the kind formerly employed by B.C. Hydro, and more

particularly in the private sector.

The export of natural gas in liquefied form across the Pacific

Ocean. Hopefully we'll have a large project get underway, with a major

pipeline from the Peace River area to Prince Rupert, largely supplied

with B.C. gas; liquefaction plants installed in the Prince Rupert area,

a major development in the order of $3 billion. The government of the

province should be doing everything in its power to encourage a

development of that kind.

Alcan. The aluminium markets are off. Alcan isn't as keen to proceed

in British Columbia as it was a couple of years ago, but it will be

back because it has a unique arrangement relative to the use of British

Columbia water in the Tweedsmuir Park area. I hope the government does

everything it can to make sure that Alcan goes ahead and builds a

smelter and fabricating plants in Terrace, Smithers and other

communities — another $3 billion or $4 billion. Those are projects that

can take the place of, and indeed may eventually exceed, the impact

that B.C. Hydro has. Of course, longer term demand for electricity may

revive and Hydro will begin to get going again.

We need some of these big corporations. When they have to compete in

international markets, regulation is more or less automatic, but when

they're big and supply only our own needs, as B.C. Hydro does — and

particularly when they are owned by the government — we must watch them

carefully.

I, for one, would break up B.C. Hydro into its components. I'd have

an electrical operation, a gas operation and perhaps meld its freight

operations with those of B.C. Rail. Break it up. Don't have all the

decisions made in one place. Don't have one or two executives deciding

whether to price natural gas at one level so as to foster the

electrical service, or to price electricity at a different level to

foster natural gas. Let the consumer decide, or if it's possible, let

the market help make the decisions. Let more people make these

fundamental decisions for us.

While I'm on gas, I want to make a passing reference to the gas

pipeline to Vancouver Island. One of the problems is that we the

people, through B.C. Hydro, have invested close to $1 billion already

to bring mainland energy, namely hydroelectric power, across the Strait

of Georgia to Vancouver Island. That link is barely utilized. It's

newly built but barely utilized. We have all sorts of surplus power on

the mainland. Until there's some prospect of that publicly financed

investment being usefully employed and employed at something

approaching its capacity, to put large sums of federal or provincial

public money into a development of the nature of a natural gas pipeline

is, I think, obviously uneconomic. I believe it's at least premature.

A gas line may eventually be built to Vancouver Island. But to argue

on the basis of the reports of a couple of years ago, when oil prices

seemed to be going through the ceiling, that now the findings of that

day make economic sense, I think, calls for review. But someday it'll

come. I don't blame the B.C. government from trying to get from Ottawa

a deal comparable to that which Quebec got a few years ago — and,

indeed, the Maritimes may get someday. So my comments on the Vancouver

Island gas pipeline have to be qualified to that extent.

[4:30]

Mr. Speaker, there are only one or two other points I'd like to make

in the limited time I have. I see reference in the speech to the

combined purchasing power of the municipalities and our Crown

corporations to the order of $2 billion to $3 billion a year — for

purchases of goods and services. The inference in the Speech from the

Throne is really that more of those purchases should be made at home in

British Columbia, that we shouldn't be buying outside the province —

Alberta or Ontario — if we can possibly avoid it. We should be more

self-sufficient if we possibly can, and if we use these government

agencies to discriminate, we will be protectionist to some extent, at

least.

[Mr. Michael in the chair.]

British Columbia has had a policy — certainly B.C. Hydro has had a

policy for some years — of buying from a British Columbian source if it

is within 10 percent of the lowest bidder from elsewhere. Certainly

that was the policy with light rapid transit, although I must say that

in most cases the lowest bidder was either in British Columbia or there

was no B.C. bid available and the lowest-cost outside source that could

produce or deliver the service or goods was chosen. Nevertheless, there

is a policy of 10 percent preference for British Columbia source goods

and services. Ontario claims to have no preferences, but I wonder about

that. Alberta claims to have no preferences. Quebec, at the other

extreme, is highly preferential. It never employs engineering firms

based outside Quebec. I don't think we should copy Quebec. I think we

should look around and be part of Canada, at least, and, indeed, we

should buy the lowest-cost source internationally if world prices plus

our tariffs deliver the goods or services more cheaply here.

I'm essentially arguing for freer trade, if not for free trade. I'm all for free enterprise, but free enterprise isn't free

[ Page 5162 ]

when a few or a single large corporation dominate the field. So I have to qualify my stipulations in that regard.

Finally, social services. Unless we have a dynamic economy, unless

we have a growing economy, there's no way we can avoid restraint.

Indeed, I believe we should always be showing some restraint in some

areas, because otherwise we have no priorities whatsoever.

If restraint causes us to do things more efficiently, we have more

finances to go around, and we can purchase more of other things — more

goods and services. Two-thirds of the budget of this Legislature goes

for health, education and human resources. It's a proportion which has

been rising. Everything else costs less than a third.

Obviously, if the revenues, taxes and other revenues flowing into

the government are levelling off or, worse still, as they've done in

recent years, declining, everything is compromised. Social services are

under limits; they face strictures. Health care expenditures have

continued to rise, but more slowly over the last few years. Education

costs have been contained — indeed, reduced — in some areas because of

a declining school population. But human resources costs, because of

high unemployment particularly, have risen along with health care.

I think the government has done a good job in spreading its limited

tax revenue around to cover those social services and, in the main, to

improve their quality month by month right through the present and into

the future.

So, Mr. Speaker, we've been through a period of restraint. I think

we'll have some continuing measures of restraint. There is the prospect

of recovery: first, obviously, in the United States, but as Western

Europe and the Asiatic countries begin to expand once more, then I

believe — and it's happened time and time throughout history — our

economy will revive and boom again.

So I'm not at all pessimistic. But I must say that the hon. member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) worried me a little bit when he talked

about that horrible prospect of big government coming back again, if

only for a very brief period.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I always look forward to hearing the hon.

member who just took his seat, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour,

because he is one of the members of this House who is usually

reasonable, rational and does his research. I must say, though, that I

thought his reaction to the throne speech today was rather sparse and

dry, and he really didn't have too much to say about it. I think that's

understandable, Mr. Speaker. We are all in a bit of a spot here in

trying to debate a Speech from the Throne which is one of the most

vacuous I've ever seen. I was here, I think, before you were born, Mr.

Speaker — maybe not quite that long ago!

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am really concerned that we are being asked

today, in 1985, to debate a speech that.... I think people out there

were hoping, somehow or other, that the Social Credit government of

British Columbia would finally have come to their senses and would

openly repudiate the policies which they have been following for the

last several years, particularly the so-called restraint type of

policies which have brought nothing but more doom, gloom and terrible

tragedy to many of the people of this province, through increased

unemployment and no hope whatsoever.

So it is difficult for us, and I think that is why the speaker who just took

his seat had very little to say. The only time he strayed a little bit and showed

a little bit of spark and life was when he reacted to our speakers. Once again,

he shows no reason or rationality when he refers to the old myth about the NDP

being unable to come forward with any concrete policies. We are the party of

welfare — I believe he implied that utter nonsense today, Mr. Speaker. All we

have to do is look at the figures, and we can see that it's the governments

which advocate the kind of policies which the Social Credit government of B.C.

does which are indeed creating more people on welfare.

We just have to compare the province of Manitoba and their way of

handling the economy with British Columbia, and we see more jobs, not

less. We see less people on welfare and not more, the complete reverse

of what we have in British Columbia. So I was disappointed that that

usually rational member, I think in desperation, had to let loose with

a brief little spark, and it only was when he was alluding to the NDP.

As far as his own government is concerned, what can one say?

MR. MACDONALD: He's against the natural gas pipeline, but he doesn't blame the government.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, it was interesting, wasn't it? As my

colleague has just said to me.... I don't want to take credit for what

he said, although I agree with him. The first member for Vancouver East

has just made the point that the member who just took his seat, who is

a Social Credit back-bencher — the one and only Social Credit

back-bencher — has said that he's against the pipeline. Yet he's in no

way really going to blame the government for what they're doing with

it. With his engineering background and all his involvement as a

federal minister, I know he could have dissected it in a very

reasonable way, but it is unfortunate that he did not choose to do so.

I think our leader, this morning, did something which is all that's

left to the NDP to do with this speech, and that is to propose an

alternative to what is there and what is given to us. It's difficult to

pose an alternative to something that's so vapid and empty, but the

Leader of the Opposition did prepare for the consideration of the

people of British Columbia — because I'm afraid it may fall on deaf

ears in the Legislature.... Although the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is listening. He may listen, and he may have

listened this morning, and maybe he'll take to his cabinet some of our

concrete suggestions. After all, Mr. Speaker, we're all here together

in this Legislature. It's difficult to put aside partisan politics, I

realize, but at this time I think that we really should be working

together to help the people out there who are not in the position we

are in of being able to count on security — at least, until the next

election we can count on food and shelter.

The tragedies that are out there, I know, are not the kinds of

tragedies that any member of this House would wish to inflict upon

anyone. But unfortunately the government, which is the collective voice

of the people over there, is inflicting policies on the people of

British Columbia which are indeed causing tragedies.

I noticed yesterday that the newly appointed federal Minister of

Fisheries did something rather unusual, which I don't think we've seen

from a politician in many years — especially a cabinet minister — when

he was asked about the tragedy of the family in which a murder-suicide

took four lives in the lower mainland the other day. One of the reasons

suggested for that tragedy — although no one will ever know, I suppose

— is depression resulting from the loss of a job. As

[ Page 5163 ]

I say, none of us can ever prove that was so. But

the point is that this federal cabinet minister actually had the

courage to stand up and say publicly: "I feel terrible. I was the one

who ordered those cutbacks." You have to give him credit for saying

this. Some people may say: "My, he was politically stupid to make that

admission." I say he was politically honest and courageous.

This is something that we're waiting to hear from the members of the

Social Credit cabinet. Every day they are making decisions that are

affecting the day-by-day lives of the people of British Columbia. Some

of those decisions made by the Social Credit cabinet, and abetted and

agreed to, I presume, by the rest of the members, are having some very

tragic effects on the people of this province. I think it's time that

the Social Credit government stood up and admitted this. At least admit

it. If you're going to continue in this stubborn, obstinate way which

you have of carrying on with the same old policies which are going to

create more tragedy, I think it's about time you stood up and accepted

the responsibility for many of them.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, which I consistently hear in this

Legislature from the members of the Social Credit government in debate

is reference to toughness. We hear about their tough leader. We hear

about making tough decisions. I think that most of the members on that

side of the House are enamoured with the word "tough." Perhaps the

polls have shown that the people of British Columbia respect and admire

tough leaders. Well, I look at another very tough leader in the world,

Margaret Thatcher, whom some people admire very much. Even though I'm

very pleased that we have a woman Prime Minister, I do not admire any

of her policies. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker: there is a woman who is

considered tough. What we should do is analyze what these so-called

tough leaders and tough policies really do create. The myth of

toughness has to be analyzed.

Let us look at what's happened in England — and I want to relate it

to exactly what is happening here in British Columbia. Let's take the

youth in England. In the age bracket from 14 to 25, they have the

highest unemployment figures that they've had in years in England. We

have the same parallel in British Columbia. That is the real tragic

zone: the young people of that age who are out of work in this province

and in England. The tragedy is that in England, Mrs. Thatcher started

her policies of restraint and cutbacks on people services many years

before the Social Credit started, but the Social Credit have followed

along exactly the same — although certainly on a much smaller scale, of

course, when you consider our population differences. But the policies

are the same.

[4:45]

What has happened in England? It has been said now that many of

those young people who left school at 15 or 16, perhaps, have not had

any work. Some of them who are now 25 or 26 have never done a day's

work in their lives. They have lived on welfare from the day they came

out. The tragedy is that if Thatcher continues with those policies,

their future will continue to be that bleak. As a matter of fact, the

psychological prognosis is that many of these young people, having been

on welfare for years and never having had a decent job, will simply

never be able to enter the workforce again, even though it's provided

to them.

I say to Social Credit that you are embarked on the same policies.

You may call them tough policies, but I call them tragic and negative

policies. I cannot understand, with the facts in front of you and

seeing what has happened to other governments who have taken the same

line, why you cannot see that it's time to back up and do a complete

reverse. This is what the NDP is trying to suggest.

When I go through the throne speech — brief as it is — the thing I

regret is that there is very little talk about prevention. It seems to

me that a lot of attention should be paid by this government, which is

so cost-conscious, to developing the whole area of preventive services.

The irony is that never before have so many people services been

needed, and that is because of the policies of the Social Credit

government. Their policies of creating unemployment and cutting back on

many services have in themselves created a need for more of these

services. We find that this government, instead of creating more to

pick up the slack, is cutting back in vital areas.

Yesterday morning on CBC I heard a woman speaking about another

tragedy in this province: the death of a teenage prostitute, who was

cruelly put to death by someone. This woman was making the following

point: "I was particularly upset about that death, because a few years

ago I was actually working in a group funded by the government to help

young teenagers in difficulty." She said that this young teenager who

was recently murdered was in that group, and when the government

cutbacks came, that program went down the tube. She said: "I never saw

the young girl again." There's no way I hold any individual in this

government responsible for that kind of thing, because no one in this

room would want this to happen. But unless you reverse your policies we

are going to have increased tragedies like that. Prevention is

something that should be done by this government in all areas,

particularly in the area that I'm mostly concerned with now as debate

leader — that is, the area of health.

Every day we hear complaints from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen) and other members of the government about the terrible costs

of health, saying that something dreadful is going to have to be done

about health costs. Yet all we see in the throne speech is a reference

to how many billions of dollars the Social Credit government puts aside

for health. I think it's one-third of the budget, and that sounds

pretty good. But the point is: why does this government not make a

close analysis of the costs in health? Why doesn't it say: "Can we not

find areas where money is now being spent needlessly?" The NDP is not

encouraging more and more spending. We say that spending has to be done

in the right place at the right time. We feel that there are many areas

in health where this government could be dealing with prevention and

where they are not doing so, and that they are costing the taxpayers

millions of dollars because of it.

One area where the government is, I believe, remiss is the whole

area of alcoholism prevention for people who need help. The government,

as we'll see when the new budget comes down — I don't want to move on

to that now — will be listing for us how much revenue they are taking

in from the sale of alcohol. If it follows the course of what we've

seen in past years, we will find that there is no connection between

the money that has been taken in and the amount that this government is

willing to spend on people who are alcoholics or on education against

alcoholism and other drugs. Alcoholism has proved to be one of our most

serious problems in British Columbia. The government talks about it

being a problem, but as with most cases of prevention, it does not put

forward to the public some much-needed programs to assist people who

are having problems in that area.

[ Page 5164 ]

For example, I don't know if you know, Mr. Speaker, but the

percentage of B.C. drinkers is one of the highest in all of Canada.

Among the ten provinces, B.C. has the highest percentage of current

drinkers: 73 percent, some 18 percent higher than even the Atlantic

provinces. What I'm trying to say is, I can understand why people would

be driven to drink by the policies of this government. So if the

government is responsible, in more ways than one, for some of the

increased drinking, the government has a responsibility to do something

about this tragedy. I regret to say that I don't see, througho