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

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5133 ]

CONTENTS

Throne speech debate

Mr. Skelly –– 5133

Mr. Reynolds –– 5139

Mr. Stupich –– 5142

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1985

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it is a particular pleasure

today, for more than one reason, to welcome to the floor of the chamber

Sterling R. Lyon, PC, QC, MLA, the former Premier of Manitoba. Mr. Lyon

has been with us for a couple of days renewing acquaintances both in

this work and in other forms of endeavour, and also renewing

acquaintance with members of his very large family, which has spread

from Manitoba to British Columbia, back to Manitoba and, indeed,

throughout the country.

Sterling Lyon, as I'm sure all members will agree, holds a

particularly prominent spot in the history of his province and the

country. It is indeed a pleasure to have him here this morning.

MR. SKELLY: The opposition joins the government in welcoming

former Premier Lyon to British Columbia and hopes that he enjoys his

stay here.

I would like to introduce some people in the gallery today,

beginning with a former member of this Legislative Assembly and a

former Minister of Public Works for the province of British Columbia,

the Hon. Bill Hartley. I would also like to introduce a few citizens of

Port Alberni: my constituency assistant, Shirley Cherwak, and my

constituency treasurer — an important person in this organization, Mr.

Speaker — Barbara Barrett. I would also like to introduce in the

gallery somebody I seldom see up there, my executive secretary from

Victoria, Joan McKinty; my wife, Alexandra Skelly; my sister, Catherine

Skelly; and their friend, Anita Watts, also from Victoria. I hope the

House will make them all welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to add

slightly to the comments proffered by my colleague, the Minister of

Finance, and by the leader of the official opposition concerning the

presence of the Hon. Sterling Lyon on the floor of our House today. I

would like to very publicly state that Mr. Lyon, as Premier of Manitoba

and as chairman of the provincial Premiers, made a great contribution

to the constitutional process which led to the patriation of our

constitution on April 17, 1982. He is an outstanding Canadian.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, we also have in the gallery another

guest, another former member of this assembly who is a regular visitor,

with a kind of occasional schedule. I see him around so often. I'd like

the House to join me in welcoming Cyril Shelford, former Minister of

Agriculture.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like the House to welcome the past president and

now the treasurer of the Cowichan-Malahat New Democratic Party constituency

association, who is visiting the House today. He was here on throne speech day,

and he has returned to hear the reply to the throne speech.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. GARDOM: Address in reply. I take it this morning

we're going to have the pleasurable words of the hon. leader of the

official opposition. We look forward to his comments.

[10:15]

MR. SKELLY: I thank the House Leader for allowing us to

commence the business of the Legislature today. I appreciate this

opportunity to respond, as the new leader of the New Democratic Party

in this Legislature, to the throne speech delivered by His Honour on

Monday last. In my response I will review the state of the province

today, respond to some of the issues outlined by the government in its

throne speech, and propose some alternatives which would have appeared

in the throne speech had the New Democratic Party occupied the

government benches opposite.

I join the government, first of all, in acknowledging the visits to

this province of importance religious and political leaders. I also

join the government in mourning the loss of well-known British

Columbians. But I would like to draw to the attention of the members

those of our citizens who died in humbler circumstances, on the job;

people who died making their contribution to the British Columbia

economy. Because, Mr. Speaker, in the first nine months of 1984, some

103 citizens of British Columbia died on the job in this province, and

they deserve the recognition and respect of members of this

Legislature. Those young and old who die at work may not have their

names inscribed in throne speeches, nor will they be remembered in the

history books. But to their families, friends and co-workers theirs is

an irreplaceable loss. When you consider the loss to our economy from

workplace death, injury and disease, that loss exceeds the time lost

due to labour disputes. I believe it is important that legislators, who

have the duty to improve workplace health and safety, at least be aware

of the numbers of people who have been lost or injured as a result of

on-the-job accidents and disease.

The government in its throne speech recognized the efforts of Terry

Fox and Steve Fonyo, and the achievements of our athletes in the

Olympics and in the B.C. Summer and Winter Games. The opposition joins

in recognizing those efforts and achievements, Mr. Speaker, because

they represent what is best in all British Columbians.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I would like to speak for a few minutes about what is best in

British Columbia. My family first came to this province in 1913. They

came because the province was, to them, a land of growth and promise, a

place where you could raise a family with the prospect that each new

generation would live under better circumstances than the generation

before it. British Columbians are justifiably proud of the fact that,

in spite of huge distances and adverse geography, they have been able

to develop a network of roads, railroads, energy transmission and

communication systems which link together our diverse communities into

a successful economic and political unit. Fuelled by the incredible

wealth of our forests, minerals and energy, fisheries and agriculture,

[ Page 5134 ]

have enjoyed have-province status within the

Canadian Confederation. Our workers produce the wealth and income that

they require to achieve a decent standard of living. But as Canadians

they are also proud of the fact that they produce wealth in excess of

their needs, which could be distributed to the have-not regions of this

country and to those less fortunate within our province.

What always strikes people about British Columbians is their energy,

pride, independence, hospitality and fairness, and their vision of a

better future for our province and for all its citizens. Even through

the most difficult times in our history British Columbians have worked

together to overcome the limitations of geography and adverse economic

conditions to make this province one of the great regions of Canada and

the world. During that time they have elected leaders who shared and

inspired their proud vision of British Columbia's future — that is,

until the current government came to office.

This past decade has been marked by a systematic attack by Social

Credit on the established political, economic and social institutions

of our province. Chronic unemployment and growing welfare rolls have

sapped the pride of our people. The current government has provoked

confrontation between groups in our society — teachers, unions and

public sector workers — which has robbed us of our collective energy.

Human and civil rights have been treated as excessive regulation and

costs of doing business in government. The government has removed most

of the formal processes which allowed democratic citizen input into the

government decision-making process.

I would like to speak for a while about the Socred attack on the

economy. The government in the last ten years has sabotaged the

province's economic prospects, leaving our people vulnerable to the

most savage effects of international economic downturns. If a

government's competence in managing the economy can be judged by its

results, this government is guilty of gross mismanagement. The Social

Credit economic program is a complete disaster. As an economic manager,

the Premier must be economic manager, the Premier must be judged a

failure.

Let's look at unemployment. In January this year there were 228,000

people unemployed in the province of B.C. –– 16.4 percent of our total

workforce. Our unemployment record is now fourth only to Newfoundland,

New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, three of the chronic have-not

provinces in Canada. In some regions of British Columbia the problem is

even worse. The unemployment rate in the West Kootenays, at 26.7

percent, is worse than the rate for all of Newfoundland. The rates in

the southern interior, the central interior, Vancouver Island and

northern British Columbia are worse than the unemployment rate for New

Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.

Such expensive government projects as Expo, ALRT, northeast coal and

highway projects seem to have no significant impact whatsoever on

unemployment, even in the regions where they're carried out, and in

fact most of those projects have left unemployment worse rather than

better.

British Columbia now receives handouts from the national government of $1.4

billion annually in unemployment insurance payments and $600 million annually

in Canada Assistance Plan subsidies to welfare. In many communities government

subsidies to welfare and unemployment insurance are the major payrolls. The

welfare costs in the provincial budget have increased from $444 million in 1975-76

to $1.3 billion in 1983-84 — a 300-percent increase in eight years, in spite

of surface cutbacks, rate freezes and staff cuts. Even as the welfare budget

runs out of control, the number of families defined as poor grew at a faster

rate in British Columbia than in any other province –– 14 percent

of all British Columbia families, one in seven. One in every three single persons

are now considered poor by definition, and the number is growing.

Taxes. A few weeks ago on a radio program, the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen) reminded British Columbians that even though 15

percent of the workforce were unemployed at that time, 85 percent were

still working. That was cold comfort to the jobless. But it is also an

insult, Mr. Speaker, to those who must work harder and longer to pay

the additional costs of people on unemployment insurance and welfare.

As a news columnist recently pointed out: "The Social Credit

government, during the restraint program, has increased taxes by $1

billion and debt by almost $4 billion, mostly to finance welfare,

unemployment insurance and unemployment costs." According to the Fraser

Institute, the government's own economic advisers, British Columbians

work longer to pay taxes to the government than residents of any

province but Quebec before they start working for themselves. The costs

of poverty and unemployment are not only an indignity to those directly

affected; they are a tremendous added burden to those of us who are

lucky enough to remain at work.

Debt. This Premier used to delight in lecturing British Columbians

about the danger of free-spending governments and debt, but during the

nine years of his government he has increased direct and contingent

liability debt in this province from less than $5 billion on March 31,

1976, to $17.5 billion one month ago — a 380 percent increase in this

province's debt. The direct dead-weight debt alone of the province is

now approaching two-thirds of the whole debt — direct and contingent

liability debt — when the Premier took office in 1975.

The problem of British Columbia is partly a problem of a worldwide

recession, but most provinces began to recover from that recession in

1983. The major reason for British Columbia's economic problem is that

the Premier has never had a clear long-term economic vision for the

province. He has never had an understanding of who the economy is

designed to serve. He has corrupted the economic planning process to

serve a political timetable rather than to address the long-term needs

of British Columbia and its citizens. The result is that he appears to

lurch from one megaproject to the next, with no consistent plan in

mind. In election years the government lays down two million tonnes of

pavement, employing thousands of people. In the following year one-half

million tonnes of pavement is laid down; contractors go broke, and

employees go on welfare until the next pre-election paving boom.

By any credible independent measure of economic performance, Mr.

Speaker, even by the government's own standards, Social Credit has been

a dismal economic failure. Their spendthrift habits in good economic

times, their concentration on highly capital-intensive projects, their

neglect of our basic resource industries, their harsh economic

measures, heavy taxes and ill-conceived spending priorities in response

to the recession have impoverished our province and impoverished our

people.

I would also like to deal with this Social Credit government's attack on our democratic political institutions. These

[ Page

5135 ]

institutions are fundamental; they are the basis of the democratic process.

Democracy depends on a neutral mechanism for establishing the basis of representation

in the Legislature. In British Columbia we do not have such a neutral mechanism.

The current electoral district boundaries in this province were drafted by a

former Social Credit candidate in 1978, and the distortions in the electoral

system were further accentuated by the formula that was adopted in the changes

to the Constitution Act in 1985. There has been an immoral gerrymander of the

electoral boundaries in the province of British Columbia, and that gerrymander

was accentuated by the formula that was applied in the Constitution Act in 1985.

In addition, democratic institutions depend on full impartial access

to information by all participants in the political process. This

government spends approximately $18 million annually of taxpayers'

money assembling information from the media, sampling public opinion

through polling and distributing information to the public. It denies

the opposition and the public access to its information collection

network, and it denies the public and the opposition access to the

results of its polling. The result is that this expensive publicly

financed information-gathering-and-distribution network operates as an

extension of the interests of a single political party in government.

It is a Social Credit propaganda network financed by the taxpayers of

British Columbia.

I recently met with the Premier, Mr. Speaker, and during that

meeting I discussed with him equal access to the information services

of the government so that we could find out what information is being

monitored by that service from the various media all over the province

— what information comes in from the various government agencies that

they obtain from clipping services, etc., in various communities all

over the province. The hope was that the government would treat this

information non-politically and that they would make it available to

all political parties in the Legislature and to the public on an equal

basis so that we could all take advantage of the information-gathering

network that we collectively finance through our taxes. The Premier

refused access to that information-gathering network.

The most recent example of this government's attack on the process

is the sabotaging of legislation which protects the professionalism and

the political independence of the public service in British Columbia.

Changes to the public service legislation in the last session, which

closed last week, now allow ministers to appoint public employees even

down to the line positions in government. As a result, the system can

be politically subverted, and what was once a capable, efficient,

politically independent public service must now follow the instructions

of its political masters — Social Credit — rather than serve the

interests of the people as a whole.

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker, democracy is a sensitive condition. It relies on the

ability of its citizens to be accurately informed rather than

politically manipulated. It relies on the ability of citizens, through

a politically neutral election process, to change governments which

operate contrary to their public interest. It relies on politically

independent public servants to serve the people of this province rather

than to serve the government in office.

But the one thing democracy depends on most — and I hope that the New Democratic

Party can rely on this thing in the coming election campaign — is the sense

of outrage on the part of people when the system, the information and the public

service are corrupted to the benefit of a single political party. I hope that

we can rely on that sense of outrage to change the government of this province.

That brings me to my third point in terms of the government's attack

on the economics, the political system and the social system of this

province. I want to talk about the people who are best represented by

Terry Fox and Steve Fonyo, whose achievements are documented in the

throne speech. The people of British Columbia are proud of their

contribution. They're proud of the contribution that they've made

economically, in the same way that Terry Fox and Steve Fonyo have made

one in terms of Canada. But what this government has done, Mr. Speaker,

is to make a systematic attack on the pride of the people of British

Columbia.

The government has not only succeeded in impoverishing large numbers

of our citizens; they have also systematically attacked their pride.

The government is constantly telling us that our workers are overpaid,

lazy and uncompetitive, and if they want to learn how to compete, then

they have to look at wages and working conditions in the Third World

countries. They accuse our teachers and faculty of being incompetent

and ineffective. The government ignores economic proposals from the

regions, from municipalities, from workers' organizations and from

small businesses around B.C.; they prefer either to go into their own

cloister or overseas for their economic ideas.

This government considers good labour relations, workplace health

and safety, and effective protection of human rights as excessive

regulation and an added cost of doing business. Mr. Speaker, this

government has attempted to systematically humiliate the people of

British Columbia. I don't think they've been successful, and I believe

that the people of this province will turn out the government that in

the last few years has turned on them.

It's time for Social Credit to stop telling the people of this

province what they can't do, and it's time for government to start

asking the people what they're willing to do. It's time for government

to stop shoving expensive megaprojects of questionable economic utility

down the throats of our citizens, and it's time for government to start

tapping the fundamental energy, enthusiasm, optimism and creativity of

our people. It's time for the government in this province to develop

some respect for its proper role in a democratic society.

Let me tell you what a New Democratic Party government would do if

we occupied the benches opposite. I would like to draw your attention,

Mr. Speaker, to the background paper that we have prepared on this

speech that we are calling the "alternate throne speech to the B.C.

Legislature."

The first thing we would do as government is establish a long-term

economic vision for this province, a vision based on one fundamental

proposition: that British Columbians have a right to a decent standard

and quality of life regardless of their origins, sex, age or individual

differences. As the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops indicated

in their statement on the economy a few years ago, the economy is here

to serve the people, Mr. Speaker, not the other way around.

Because the political, economic and social institutions of this

province are in such a shambles as a result of Social Credit's

mismanagement and failed economic strategy, a number of long-term and

short-term issues must be addressed concurrently. The first of these

issues is jobs. An NDP government would immediately re-establish

realistic provincial and regional job creation goals, with the ultimate

goal being an economy which provides productive employment

[ Page 5136 ]

for all those who are willing and able to work.

Many of the European social democracies which have competed so

effectively with our resource industries in the last few years do so

despite higher than average wages — higher than Canadian wages — and

with comprehensive social benefits. They also have full employment

strategies. But in the short term, the government in this province must

deal with the immediate economic problem, and that problem is

unemployment.

There is a reason for setting employment goals. And Bob Hawke, the

Prime Minister of Australia, did set a goal for employment in that

country; he set a goal of 500,000 new jobs within a certain period of

time. In his first year he achieved 230,000 new jobs. Today he has

created 400,000 new jobs, and he is well on the way to achieving the

goal of 500,000 new jobs in Australia. At the same time, social

benefits have increased, family allowances have increased, unemployment

insurance rates have increased — not the rate of unemployment, but

unemployment insurance rates — old age pensions and family allowances

have been increased, and the deficit in Australia has gone down.

Australia is now one of the fastest-growing countries monitored by the

OECD. And that is a result of addressing the main problem in our

economy, which is unemployment; and it's the result of establishing

realistic employment goals.

The first reason that we should establish employment goals is that

it would focus the government's attention on the real needs of the

economy and away from the megaproject orientation which serves this

government's political ends and very little else. There is no shortage

of work to be done in British Columbia; there is work in

municipalities, work in restoring our forests to sustainability, and

work in improving infrastructure, upgrading housing, improving energy

efficiency, and upgrading fish and wildlife habitat. There is no

shortage of work to be done in the province.

Secondly, establishing a job creation goal would be a signal to all

sectors that the government has restored its confidence in our people

and in our economy. People would be taken off the welfare and

unemployment rolls, thereby reducing government expenditures, and they

would turn to paid productive employment. They would become taxpayers

again. Those who have savings — and the amount of demand savings in

British Columbia is estimated at some $36 billion — would begin

investing and spending again as a result of the restored confidence,

thereby stimulating additional job creation.

There is no question that long-term employment goals will have to

consider a number of things: the issue of technological change, the

fact that many people are going to be taken out of the workforce by

changes in technology. But the province will also have to look at

methods of shortening people's working careers through reducing

optional retirement ages, paid educational leave and other strategies

which are designed to maintain a full employment picture. Those are the

long-term goals. But the immediate goal of this government should be —

and an immediate goal of an NDP government would be — to establish a

goal of employment creation to reduce the number of unemployed people

in British Columbia.

The second immediate goal of an NDP government is that we would move

immediately to return our forests to sustainability by restocking

quality NSR forest lands in every region of the province. Site-tending,

thinning and spacing, and other silvicultural applications would create

several thousand jobs annually in every single region of British

Columbia. These programs will produce long-term net returns to the

province far in excess of their cost. Whether or not the federal

government is prepared to put up the money now, the provincial

government must recognize its primary responsibility for our forest

resources immediately. Restocking NSR lands and intensive silvicultural

programs should definitely have been considered a greater priority than

paying off the historic debt of B.C. Rail. Clearly this is an area

where the regional, municipal and private sector energies could be

tapped in fairly short order. There are people and organizations out in

the communities of this province who are already putting programs

together, and the only thing they are waiting for is some response from

this tired old provincial government and from the federal government to

fund the programs that they have ready to go.

A third immediate priority of an NDP government would be to restore

the quality of education at all levels: public schools, colleges,

universities, and technical and vocational schools. As Franklin D.

Roosevelt said, education is the last thing that should be cut during a

recession, because it is the key to economic recovery. Teachers and

faculty in this province must be reassured that their contribution is

valued. Students should have the confidence that their career

objectives will not be interrupted by constant program cancellations,

and they should be assured that access to higher education will be

guaranteed by restoring provincial student grants.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.)

The government throne speech mentions tax concessions and cuts in

energy costs for industry. While we have no objection to such tax cuts

and reduced costs, we are concerned that they be given only if there is

a substantial return in the form of new job creation when those tax

cuts and reduced costs are made available.

I put forward a number of alternatives to the Premier in order to

increase personal disposable income in the province because extra money

in the hands of citizens is the money that stimulates demand for goods

and services, and entrepreneurs respond to that increased demand for

goods and services by creating new businesses and new jobs. Demand in

this economy is currently at a very low level because personal

disposable incomes are at a fairly low level.

The government should immediately restore the income tax credit to

lower- and middle-income citizens which they repealed two years ago.

The government should begin immediately to remove health care premiums

from low-income earners in the province and begin to transfer the costs

of medicare to general revenues, as it is done in every province in

Canada but three — the most conservative provinces. This would

eliminate part of the government bureaucracy, improve the competitive

position of industries which now pay premiums on behalf of their

workers, and increase the disposable income of our citizens who are now

saddled with heavy medical care insurance premiums. Both of these

programs would increase personal disposable income, which would

stimulate the demand in local economies, causing the creation of jobs

in the retail goods and service sector. There have to be many, many

other methods that can be used to reduce taxes and to reduce costs on

citizens of this province so their disposable income will increase and

they can afford

[ Page

5137 ]

the goods and services which entrepreneurs stand willing to provide, creating

jobs in the process of providing those services.

When we're speaking of disposable income, Mr. Speaker, I would like

to talk about a program mentioned in the Premier's throne speech: the

Vancouver Island gas pipeline. On many occasions the New Democratic

Party has come out in favour of the construction of the Vancouver

Island gas pipeline — and that's now in Hansard

— provided, of course, that it's economically justified. We have some

serious doubts that the federal government will ever finance its share

of the construction costs and operating losses of this financially

justified pipeline.

[10:45]

We would suggest that the current government take some immediate

steps to reduce the cost of electricity on Vancouver Island for heating

purposes. If the provincial government wants to provide some energy

benefits to the citizens of Vancouver Island, it could do so now

without jeopardizing construction of the Vancouver Island gas pipeline.

I suggest that the government lower energy costs on Vancouver Island to

a level that would be equivalent to heating costs in the natural gas

markets on the mainland.

We would also suggest that the government finance the cost of

converting from oil to electric/oil hybrid heating systems on Vancouver

Island, which would produce a number of immediate desirable economic

impacts. First, it would reduce electrical energy costs, and the

financing of electric conversions would help soak up the province's

current surplus energy and transmission capacity, which we're now

trying to sell to California at rates below the cost of production.

Secondly, it would reduce heating costs in homes, businesses and

institutions on Vancouver Island. As a result, it would increase the

disposable income of individual citizens. By cutting back on the cost

of energy, businesses would be competitive with businesses in the

natural gas market areas on the mainland. It would also reduce taxes,

since the energy costs in schools, hospitals and other institutions

would be reduced to a rate that can be fairly compared with the rate in

the natural gas market areas of the mainland.

Electrical conversions and increased disposable incomes will

stimulate direct and indirect job creation on Vancouver Island. In

addition, this policy would provide benefits to communities such as

Victoria, Nanaimo, Port Alberni which are considered to be included in

the proposed natural gas market area, but would also benefit

communities on the west coast — Tofino, Ucluelet, Bamfield, Gold River,

Tahsis, Zeballos, Powell River, Port Hardy, Port Alice — and all of

those communities on northern Vancouver Island that will never, even in

the government's program, get access to natural gas. Are they going to

be forced to continue to pay forever a discriminatory high rate for

electrical or oil heating when other people on Vancouver Island will

have access to cheap natural gas?

I think this is a program that the government could adopt

immediately. If they made the decision, it could be in place tomorrow;

all they would have to do is reduce the price of electric energy for

home heating purposes or for heating purposes in industry and

institutions. Reduce that price today and the benefits in terms of new

disposable income, new jobs, new goods and services on Vancouver Island

would be delivered tomorrow.

I originally proposed this program to the Duncan Rotary Club in November 1984,

If at some time in the future the federal government is convinced that a natural

gas pipeline has any economic viability, then the provincial government will

at that point be able to obtain from the federal government the $528 million

construction subsidy and payment for the operating losses of the line over its

first few years. The government could then make a more sensible decision with

respect to the routing of that pipeline. Rather than going the southern route

to Vancouver Island, it might be more economically justified if it went the

northern route and created all of those jobs on the mainland coast in fertilizer

plants and that type of thing that would provide such a tremendous benefit to

the area around Powell River in the Mackenzie constituency.

All of these programs would increase personal disposable income;

they would stimulate demand in local communities; they would cause job

creation in the retail goods and services sector; and they would

provide a lasting net economic benefit to the citizens of British

Columbia, for very little in the way of initial public expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, no economic program can be successful if it does not

address those justice issues — or issues of injustice if we're

referring to the province of British Columbia. Addressing the immediate

needs of employment, reforestation and education would result in

substantial progress towards revitalizing our economy. But unless we

address the outstanding economic injustices, the burden of poverty,

unemployment and underemployment will continue to hamper economic

growth and recovery.

The NDP is convinced — and experience in other provinces and other

countries conclusively demonstrates — that justice and equality are not

only worthwhile in themselves; they are also good government, good

economics and good business. Addressing these issues must be a

concurrent phase of any economic reconstruction program.

Let me deal first with equality for women. I'm pleased to see that

the Premier is in the House to listen to this issue. In spite of

international attention on the goal of gender equality during the

United Nations Decade for Women, progress towards equality for women in

British Columbia has been pitifully slow. In addition, harsh economic

measures imposed under the Social Credit government restraint program

have had a disproportionate effect on women and have eliminated some of

the gains towards equality that were previously made. Many services to

women and children previously financed by the provincial government

have been cut back or eliminated altogether, thus denying women equal

access to education and employment, and forcing women in many cases to

endure unacceptable situations of domestic violence, abuse, degradation

and poverty.

When I attended the first ministers' conference in Regina as an

observer invited by Ed Broadbent of the federal observer delegation, I

noted with interest the attention paid to equality for all women by all

governments represented at the conference, with the exception of our

own. I also noted the detailed report filed by the Quebec government on

progress made during the United Nations Decade For Women to achieve

equality for women in Quebec. To my disappointment, and to the

disappointment of women in this province, no similar document was filed

by our government.

In this last year of the United Nations Decade for Women I am

calling on the provincial government to take immediate action to

eliminate all barriers to equal participation by women in the

political, the economic and the social life of this province. I also

take this opportunity to reaffirm the New Democratic Party's commitment

to full equality for women

[ Page 5138 ]

and to a society which will free women from

violence, degradation and poverty. The NDP believes that any costs

incurred by the government in removing barriers to equal participation

for women will be more than repaid by the full application of the

energy and skills of 52 percent of our population who are now forced to

play a subservient role. As I said before, equality is not simply good

government; it's good economics and it's good business. It's time that

Social Credit realized that.

In the same way that women have been marginalized in our society,

other groups have also been forced into unequal status: immigrants,

cultural minorities, the disabled and senior citizens. In the same way,

they have been more harshly affected by Social Credit cutbacks in

government services. In our background document we outlined programs

which an NDP government would implement to secure to the general

advantage of the full participation by these groups in the social and

economic life of our province.

Three groups deserve special mention in 1985: youth, which was

mentioned in passing in the throne speech; native Indians; and the

poor, who never seem to deserve much recognition from the current

provincial government.

Firstly, youth. As the throne speech indicates, 1985 is

International Year of Youth. This is another group that suffers

disproportionately from the economic recession compounded by government

cutbacks. In January 1985, 71,000 British Columbians between the ages

of 15 and 24 were out of work. Many of them have no expectation of ever

working at a decent job. Young people and children, again, are

particularly vulnerable to violent death, physical and sexual abuse,

poverty and drug and alcohol abuse. Fear of nuclear war and

unemployment are uncertainties they live with on a daily basis. Most

have no vote in this province, although young people are entitled to

vote in the national elections at the age of 18.

The New Democratic Party considers our young people a priority.

Government funds invested in services to youth and to children will be

repaid over and over again, not simply in social costs saved but in

positive benefits which the energy and creativity of young people add

to our lives and to our economy.

I call on the government to make youth a first priority during 1985,

to re-establish quality services for young people to help them deal

effectively with the changes taking place in their lives and in the

outside world.

I call on government to give young people the right to vote in

British Columbia on the same basis as they have a right to vote as

Canadians.

I further call upon this government to restore the student loan and

grant system and to restore educational funding, so that young people

from all walks of life in British Columbia will have equal access to

quality education.

Another outstanding justice issue, Mr. Speaker, is the issue of

aboriginal title. Twelve years ago, in my first speech to the

Legislature, I called on the NDP government of the day to recognize

aboriginal title to the province and to initiate the negotiation of

aboriginal claims. In spite of the fact that both major political

parties in British Columbia have similar policies with respect to

aboriginal claims, the government officially denies the existence of

aboriginal title, in spite of the fact that it is Social Credit Party

policy as passed in 1975.

I should point out that it doesn't really matter whether aboriginal

title is officially recognized or not. Aboriginal title will continue

to exist in the minds of native people in the province, whether it ever

has official sanction or not. In disputes taking place over land

settlements around the world — whether you're looking at Belfast,

whether you're looking at Palestine — those issues will remain as long

as those people have in their minds an idea that they are not occupying

their homeland or that their homeland is being occupied by someone who

does not have legitimate status there.

So it doesn't really matter, Mr. Speaker, whether this government

officially recognizes aboriginal title or not. Aboriginal title is a

fact which exists in the minds of aboriginal people, and it will

continue to influence how the business of this province is conducted

for years to come, unless the government has the sense to settle it. If

the Social Credit government thinks Indians are going to forget

aboriginal title in this province, or if they think they can avoid

dealing with the issue by official denial, they're foolhardy. The

longer they delay, the more intense and divisive the conflict will

become. Meares Island won't be the last, but the first in a long series

of conflicts which will interrupt the operation of our resource

industries. The only way to deal with the issue is to recognize title

and to negotiate the claim.

[11:00]

Even though justice is in itself a compelling reason to recognize

aboriginal claims, economics is an equally compelling reason. As I have

pointed out before, justice is not only good government; it's also good

economics and good business. A just settlement of aboriginal claims

will have the effect of mainstreaming Indian communities all over the

province of British Columbia. It will give Indian people a basis for

economic self-sufficiency, so that they can create their own jobs and

their own businesses. Wages and profits from the Indian economy would

be spent and reinvested locally rather than offshore, because Indians

would have local roots in the community. A negotiated settlement will

ensure that no one will lose their homes or property and that resource

industries can continue to operate without the kind of conflicts which

occur today because the issue of title is still in dispute.

I would urge the government to take immediate steps to recognize

aboriginal title and to begin the process of negotiations that will

resolve Indian land claims in the province of British Columbia.

I will deal briefly with poverty, Mr. Speaker, because I have

already dealt with it in part. People are more likely to be poor in

this province if they are women, if they are young, if they are old, if

they are disabled or if they are Indians. If we address those issues of

justice that I've previously mentioned, we will go a long way towards

eliminating poverty. It's going to take a long time, but the reason I

mention it today is that the attack on injustice and poverty can not

wait for economic recovery. It is the key to economic recovery for one

in seven families in this province, most of them headed by women; it is

the key for one out of every three single people in this province who

are poor. If we don't deal with poverty at the same time as we deal

with other economic issues, the burden of welfare and other social

costs of poverty and unemployment will continue to be a drag holding

back economic reconstruction.

The third phase of our economic reconstruction proposal includes the

development of a long-term economic plan for this province. During the

last session I proposed that the Legislature establish an all-party

committee on economic reconstruction. This committee would function

much in the same way as the 1942 Postwar Rehabilitation Council, which

[ Page 5139 ]

was made up of representatives from all political

parties, including representatives from the CCF, the precursor of the

New Democratic Party. It also included the Premier's father, the Hon.

W.A.C. Bennett.

The committee visited virtually every community of any size in the

province of British Columbia and heard submissions from hundreds of

organizations. It conducted hearings throughout the province and made a

series of reports between 1943 and 1944 which became the economic

blueprint of the province of British Columbia for the W.A.C. Bennett

government of the 1950s and 1960s. It dealt with agriculture; it dealt

with transportation; it dealt with energy; it dealt with public works,

highways, parks and playgrounds; it dealt with housing and education.

For the benefit of the Premier and his Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) I should quote a

section from that report which is under the

signature of his father: "There is nothing of greater value in building

individual character and shaping personal behaviour, nor anything which

will more influence the social and economic life for good, than

education." The Premier's father put his signature to that statement

three months before I was born; it is just as true today. If only the

Premier subscribed to that himself.

Mr. Speaker, that report also dealt with fishing, forestry, lands

policy and reforestation. This is the kind of consultation process

which is needed in this province today, and I would recommend it highly

to the Premier. It would certainly be the first priority of a New

Democratic Party government in British Columbia.

The NDP believes that a comprehensive economic development strategy

is necessary, but that it must be based on certain principles. It must

be democratic; it must originate with the people themselves rather than

being forced on them by a central government in Victoria. That has been

the problem with the Premier's economic strategy and his megaproject

strategy. When these programs are forced on people from Victoria, they

tend to rely on a political timetable rather than on a timetable based

on the province's long-term economic needs.

The program must be based on the principle of regional and community

self-sufficiency within the provincial economy. To the greatest extent

possible, control over regional and local economies should be

decentralized into those regions and communities.

An economic strategy must be built on the strength of our natural resource

endowment and on our basic industries: forests, fisheries, minerals, water,

agriculture and tourism. While some people in government may feel that these

are sunset industries, each one of them has tremendous potential for employment

and for value added in our economy — if the government's attention could

be directed away from their high-tech playthings and megaprojects.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Fourth, an economic strategy must recognize the legitimate role of a

range of enterprises: small business and large business, private,

public and cooperative enterprises. Government fiscal policy should

remove existing tax and other legislative barriers which allow large

enterprise favoured access while placing barriers in the way of smaller

business.

Finally, an economic strategy must serve people rather than

ideology. It must recognize the right of labour to decent incomes,

appropriate benefits, a safe and healthful workplace, and involvement

in management decisions which affect workers.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to table a copy of the New Democratic Party's

background paper for our alternative throne speech. It outlines our

concerns in a number of areas, including justice, education, health

care, labour relations, government services and economic development.

It discusses our proposals for economic reconstruction in British

Columbia, based on the model I have already described. Our members will

be discussing aspects of this program during the throne speech debate,

and will be enlarging on it during the budget as well as in our travels

around the province.

Before I close, I would like to outline our party's policy on Expo

86. As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party

supported Expo legislation when it was originally presented to the

House. We were concerned about the priorities of the government at the

time. The project has obviously suffered from a few false starts, and

also from some unnecessary conflicts between the Social Credit

government and trade unions which were provoked by the Premier, and

from some conflicts with the city of Vancouver — which were

unfortunately provoked by the Premier as well. It's unfortunate that

the Premier's attempts to use Expo as a means to divide construction

workers in the province and to poison the climate of labour relations

is going to leave a legacy of bitterness in the province for a long

time to come. This legacy of bitterness will not be helpful in

attracting investors to the province, because these investors are

looking for a stable, positive, cooperative labour relations climate.

However, we in the New Democratic Party feel that Expo should be

supported and that all citizens should work to make it a success. That

is not to suggest that we should not take advantage of the first

possible opportunity to remove the current government from office, so

that all British Columbians can unite behind worthwhile projects under

the leadership of the New Democratic Party.

As I mentioned, I will table a copy of our alternative throne speech

document. I am convinced that the people of British Columbia are tired

of a government that is centralized, manipulative, brutal and uncaring

— a government that lacks confidence in the abilities of the people who

have elected it. The people of British Columbia are tired of a

government that has lost its vision — if it ever had one in the first

place — of a better future for British Columbia. I am convinced that

people are now looking for a government that is willing to reconstruct

the economy and to redirect it to the service of the people. British

Columbians are looking for a government that inspires them to give

their best in the service of their province and of their fellow

citizens. They are looking for a government that is committed to the

principles of fairness and democracy. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that

the New Democratic Party can and will provide that government and give

the people of this province a new beginning.

Mr. Skelly tabled a document.

MR. REYNOLDS: It is both a pleasure and a privilege to speak

on the Speech from the Throne. I congratulate our government for

proposing a course of action that is imaginative, invigorating and

realistic. I have every confidence that the citizens of British

Columbia will respond in a positive way to the message of new optimism.

It ensures that the

[ Page 5140 ]

economic renewal currently underway in our province will accelerate as these new programs come into effect.

We on the government side of the House do support the Speech from

the Throne for the positive direction it provides in complementing the

determination of all British Columbians to make 1985 a year of

outstanding progress in our economy. Indeed, the public demands it. The

opposition has a responsibility to propose concrete, specific measures

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

abandon personal attacks in favour of positive, cooperative dialogue.

This is the responsibility of each member of this House.

Economic renewal moves forward in British Columbia today for two

important reasons. Firstly, the government has met in a responsible and

intelligent manner the difficulties placed upon us by the international

recession. We have not panicked; we have not vainly attempted to spend

our way out of difficulty, as the Mitterand socialists tried and failed

to do. We have not wasted the resources of British Columbians in a

futile exercise to deny the reality of change. Rather, our government

has acted in a determined and reasoned way to provide essential

services while ensuring that government imposed costs were controlled.

The second factor is the character and resolve of British Columbians

themselves. Our government admires and respects our people and their

goals, achievements and personal sense of responsibility. We are

determined to eliminate governmental restrictions that would deny our

people the full benefit of their individual initiatives and hard work.

The entrepreneurial spirit has built our province into one of the most

prosperous regions in the world. That personal declaration of

independence has provided British Columbia with the wealth to establish

one of the finest systems of social services, health care and

educational programs available.

[11:15]

Mr. Speaker, in this province, with the great generosity of our

people, no one stands to gain more from our success than those in need.

We must not allow that creativity and resolve to be stifled by

suspicion, doubt or failure of vision.

Individual freedom makes our society richer — not only in a material

sense, although the evidence that it does is all around us. We also

live in a society that enables us to be culturally and socially

enriched because individuals possess the freedom to be inventive and

innovative, to be bold and inquisitive. The very word "individual"

means to be unique and different from others. Democracy, and those who

share in it, recognize that every individual has a special and precious

contribution to make to the enrichment of society. People individually

have value in themselves and by themselves; that human dignity sustains

our desire to live and work together in harmony, friendship and peace.

Government can vitally serve in assisting people in their efforts to

develop their unique and individual talents. Our educational system

must reflect this commitment to serve. Curricula must prepare young

people to use their skills and judgment as they face the critical

decisions of life. Our province's universities and post-secondary

institutions must establish priorities which serve the contemporary and

future needs of our students and society at large. Education primarily

benefits the individual receiving it, but society also benefits in a

very real, albeit sometimes intangible, way. So we recognize that all

British Columbians — men and women, young and old, urban and rural —

should be positively encouraged to further their education to develop

their individual potential so that they can make the best possible

contribution to the life of our province.

In providing services, the government must maintain a delicate

balance. On one hand it cares for individuals and gives them the

support they require to live a full and rewarding life. On the other

hand, it must also ensure that those receiving assistance are never

robbed of their sense of independence or self-reliance. Government must

not, by seeking to assist individuals, force them into a dependent and

uncertain existence. Government programs should never replace

individual initiative; they should only complement and foster it.

In a book referred to on previous occasions in this Legislature, Nobel prize-winner Friedrich Hayek has written:

"It is impossible for any man to survey more than a limited

field, to be aware of the urgency of more than a limited number of needs. Whether

his interests centre around his own physical needs, or whether he takes a warm

interest in the welfare of every human being he knows, the ends about which

he can be concerned will always be only an infinitesimal fraction of the needs

of all men."

It should be obvious, Mr. Speaker, especially to those of us in the

House, that neither politicians, government bureaucrats, nor

well-intentioned private citizens, no matter how concerned, are able to

determine all the needs of those in society who require assistance or

of any other citizen for that matter. Hayek continues:

"This is the fundamental fact on which the whole

philosophy of individualism is based. It does not assume, as is often

asserted, that man is egotistic or selfish or ought to be. It merely

starts from the indisputable fact that the limits of our powers of

imagination make it impossible to include in our scale of values more

than a sector of the needs of the whole society.... From this the

individualist concludes that individuals should be allowed, within

defined limits, to follow their own values and preferences rather than

somebody else's.

"It is this recognition of the individual as the ultimate

judge of his own ends, the belief that as far as possible his own views ought

to govern his actions, that forms the essence of the individualist position."

We firmly believe that government should merely assist those in need to care

for themselves to the best of their ability and not force them to become wards

of the state. All individuals have a contribution to make to society. All individuals

have the capability of bettering themselves. We should not deny them the opportunity

to do so by making them dependent on others.

Our government's commitment to providing individuals with every

possible opportunity to exercise their personal capabilities,

regardless of any disability, is illustrated by the transfer of

patients from the Tranquille institution for the mentally handicapped

to more than 70 group homes throughout the province — and thus closer

to their families. We have ensured that those requiring special

assistance, as well as their families, are given the opportunity of

developing relationships, individual talents and special skills that

are almost impossible to nurture in an institutional setting.

An

article in the January 24, 1985, edition of the Vancouver Sun examined the transfer of patients from Tranquille, and describes the observations of some of the people affected

[ Page 5141 ]

by the program. One young patient states that he

has been reintroduced to life on the outside and his parents are

thrilled. The boy's father is quoted as saying that the home

environment of his son's new residence is very conducive to his

reaching his own capabilities: "He's becoming more of an individual,

more independent."

Mr. Speaker, it is now what our social services program should be attempting

to achieve. The families of the disabled are happier to be closer to their sons

and daughters, and are now making that family contact that is impossible to

replicate in an institution. Patients now more than ever have the opportunity

of developing their personal skills to levels beyond what was formerly thought

possible. Another father is quoted in the newspaper

article as saying of his

daughter: "I can't believe how happy she is now."

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy) should receive some much deserved recognition for the

success that has been achieved by this transfer program and for the

progress that these handicapped patients are making daily.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) also

deserves to be applauded for the support that his ministry is providing

to the many non-profit associations that are assisting in the

construction and maintenance of group homes throughout the province —

many of which are housing the patients transferred from Tranquille. His

ministry provides a direct grant for the purchase or renovation of

homes for those needing a supportive group-living environment and also

contributes subsidies required to cover annual operating costs.

Individuals living in the group homes are learning, with the help of

volunteer members of the many handicapped associations, to be

self-reliant and accepted in the communities in which they live. But

this program and success are not unique. They illustrate our

government's philosophy of assisting individuals to realize their full

potential. We should never be surprised at the accomplishments of

individual British Columbians, at their resourcefulness and talent and

success.

Another initiative administered by the Minister of Human Resources

is the job action program which is designed to assist income-assistance

recipients in achieving independence throughout the province by

providing them with an opportunity to develop their job-finding skills.

Those participating in the program learn how to enhance their skills

through a variety of methods aimed at encouraging the development of

self-confidence and enthusiasm.

This effort was introduced in 1980 and has proved to be highly

successful, even during these changing economic times. From 40 to 70

percent of those formerly receiving income assistance who underwent

job-action programs successfully found employment and freed themselves

from the welfare rolls. I hope that this program continues to encourage

self-reliance, and achieves even greater success in the years to come.

SAFER, the shelter allowance for elderly renters introduced by the

Social Credit government in 1977, encourages self-reliance through

providing assistance to seniors wishing to stay in their homes. SAFER

subsidies equal 75 percent of the amount by which rent exceeds 30

percent of the applicant's total income. SAFER enables seniors to live

in the homes of their choosing.

Another example of our government's philosophy at work is the

long-term home care program operated by the Ministry of Health. The

program, which was started by our government in 1978, is designed to

meet the needs of persons, who because of health-related problems

cannot live without help, so they can remain in their own homes among

their own families for as long as it is desirable and practical.

The home nursing care program consists of two services, hospital

replacement and non-hospital replacement. The hospital replacement

service is for patients who are discharged early from or in place of

admission to an acute-care hospital. Patients receive services such as

nursing, homemaker care, Meals on Wheels, medication and equipment free

of charge. This program makes the use of hospital beds more efficient

by enabling more patients to be cared for in their homes. The

non-hospital replacement service is for patients who do not need acute

hospital care but who do require professional nursing and other

services, such as those of a homemaker, in order to remain at home.

This service is available throughout the province and provides nursing

care at no charge to the patient.

Mr. Speaker, this aspect of health care demonstrates that, as in our

government's senior citizen and social assistance policies,

independence is the key to the Social Credit philosophy. British

Columbians support and welcome our commitment to them.

In 1984 the home nursing care program provided service to over

50,000 people, as an example of the growing popularity of the homemaker

care program and the desire of individuals to be treated in familiar

surroundings. The number of homemaker clients has increased from 3,500

in 1978 to 28,000 in 1984. The aim of these types of programs is,

first, to ensure that individuals receive the health care they need;

and second, to give patients a degree of independence that they would

not otherwise have in a hospital setting. In their own homes,

individuals have more control over their daily lives and retain a sense

of independence. This is indispensable to recovery from illness or

operation.

Public health nursing operates under the preventive services

division of the Ministry of Health through local health units. The

public health nurses assist individuals, families and communities with

a focus on wellness rather than illness, on prevention of disease and

disability, on early identification and treatment of problems and on

promotion of health as an individual's responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech recognizes the priority of these

services to people. It recognizes too the importance of the

transportation to move our people and our economy forward. Every day

thousands of British Columbians ride B.C. Transit buses. B.C. Transit

takes them to work and to school, to friends' homes and to places to

exercise and relax. B.C.'s transportation network links people within

their own community. Buses, vans and the Seabus serve British

Columbians efficiently and effectively. With a fleet of 1,200 buses and

special needs vans, B.C. Transit serves 21 communities throughout the

province besides Vancouver and Victoria.

In the Vancouver region alone, in 1983-84, bus passengers took 92.7

million trips. The opening of new transit exchanges at Lonsdale Quay

B.C. Transit means more than a first-class bus system. It also means a

commitment to meet the transportation needs of the elderly and the

handicapped. In partnership with local organizations, handyDART and

paratransit vans served 19 communities. In Vancouver in 1983-84,

handyDART vans carried 370,000 disabled residents, and in Victoria it

transports 38,000

[ Page 5142 ]

individuals. In Victoria the handyDART program also

provides the first transit system for the disabled in Canada to use a

computerized passenger registration. The handyDART and paratransit vans

help the elderly and handicapped move ever closer to their goal of the

greatest possible physical independence. Their physical freedom, Mr.

Speaker, must concern all of us.

ALRT adds an exciting new dimension to B.C. Transit. [Applause.] It

doesn't surprise me, Mr. Speaker, that the members for Surrey (Mrs.

Johnston and Mr. Reid) are applauding the hardest. This innovative

transportation system will open officially in January 1986. ALRTs

22-kilometre line and state-of-the-art trains will first link

Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster. More will follow. Planning is

underway to extend the line over the Fraser River into Surrey. Soon

even more British Columbians will be served by this most modern of

urban transit systems. ALRT will also enhance the beauty of our urban

neighbourhoods. Community service groups and volunteers are working

with the provincial government to create a continuous parkway along the

rail line: green spaces, pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths will

make the ALRT attractive as well as functional and will be a great

asset to the area. The British Columbia Parkway will be the first

transportation route which will be fully beautified and enhanced.

ALRT has generated jobs and new investments, and it will continue to

bring more.... Already 5,500 man-years of direct employment have been

created. At the end of 1984, British Columbia firms received nearly

$500 million of ALRT contracts. ALRT brings more than just construction

jobs: it is stimulating development in industries from landscaping to

sophisticated transportation technology. ALRT is helping to foster

renewed economic progress in British Columbia. It is committed to our

people's transportation needs. B.C.'s transit management and employees

are proud not only to transport their neighbours but also to aid in

their community's economic growth. The B.C. spirit has bus drivers,

planners and executives working harder to serve you better.

Mr. Speaker, I have presented just a few examples of the types of

initiatives undertaken by our government which reflect our

philosophical belief in individuals. There are many other programs and

examples that would further serve to underscore this commitment. I

listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and he kept on

talking about his party being on the government benches on the other

side. He spoke about long-term vision. Well, he should look at what

this government is doing with long-term vision in some of the items

I've talked about.

[11:30]

Expo is a program designed by this government. It's a long-term

vision that will turn this province around and make tourism, the number

one industry in this province, a clean industry. It's an industry that

the NDP should be supporting.

He talks about long-term vision: he didn't mention the Coquihalla

Highway, which will open up this province like the highways that the

former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, of this province built opened up the

province a couple of decades ago. It's a vision, and it's creating jobs

in this province.

He mentioned the natural gas pipeline, and he said, well, he might

be in favour of it. He said, "I'll put that on the record," so that he

can go out and make speeches and say: "I'm in favour of it." But he

doesn't tell us anything. He doesn't tell us if he is right behind us

100 percent. He wants to know every little detail, and he wants to

leave himself an out so he can criticize. I don't think that's much of

a long-term vision from the leader of the New Democratic Party.

This government has created programs for the last number of decades

that have created a vision for this province. They have created a great

province. It's unfortunate that we have to see an opposition that is so

negative all the time. I was hoping for a more positive response from

the Leader of the Opposition than the negative program.... He didn't

tell us how he would create jobs, just that he would create jobs. He

wants to make women more equal. He wants to do things for young people.

It's all motherhood; we all support those things. But this government

has made some tough decisions that are benefiting British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Oh, come on!

MR. REYNOLDS: The member for New Westminster, who is sitting

there yelling negative comments, is one of those benefiting from that

great vision of ALRT going into New Westminster. He probably hopes that

some day he can be in government so he can stand there and take credit

for building the ALRT, because that's what the NDP does with their

philosophy. They criticize everything. When they get into power, which

fortunately is not too often, they like to take credit for it all.

This government has vision. Mr. Speaker, the throne speech reflects

our belief in the creative potential of free men and women, given the

incentive to achieve personal excellence, working with their neighbours

to expand businesses, to create enterprises and to demonstrate their

powers of innovation and imagination to the world. This is the new

optimism. This is the spirit of Expo. This is British Columbia

fulfilling its promise to the future.

MR. STUPICH: Normally I would take my place later in this

debate, when there would have been some opportunity for somebody to

have told me something good about the opening speech — that I might

have questioned or expressed some concern about. But I haven't heard

anything yet, so I'll have to deal with the speech itself.

I'd like to start with the second page: "British Columbians, having

shared the adversity of the international recession...." Mr. Speaker,

if it were something that we had to share equally and fairly with

everyone else, then I suppose we could grin and bear it and say: "Yes,

we'll accept our share of it." But B.C. has taken more than its share

of the adversity of the economic depression as far as Canada is

concerned. That's a first for us. Under this administration, for the

first time B.C. has suffered greater than almost every other province

from an economic turndown, according to the Canadian average. That's a

real accomplishment for the Social Credit administration. We're down

near the bottom of the heap, economically speaking, for the first time

in the history of our country.

I'm quoting again. "Having restrained public sector costs, thus

preventing the buildup of massive debt and corresponding tax

increases...." Well, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, in his

place in this debate, told us that the debt had increased. The tax

increases have amounted to some $1 billion a year in the last three

years. But it's the debt that I'd like to ask about, Mr. Speaker.

According to the opening speech, the government has prevented the

buildup of massive debt. How much is massive? As the Leader of the

Opposition pointed out, in the nine

[ Page 5143 ]

years under this administration the total

provincial debt has increased almost fourfold — from something over $4

billion to something over $17 billion by February of this year. That

debt is costing the people of British Columbia $2 billion a year in

interest charges alone. Our budget this year called for revenue of $7.2

billion. I'm not suggesting all the payments have to come out of that,

but it's costing the people of British Columbia $2 billion a year in

interest alone. They prevented the buildup of massive debt? Mr.

Speaker, how much is massive? What do we have to show for it? That

works out to $5.5 million a day in interest charges that the people of

British Columbia are being called upon to pay: $5.5 million every day,

and that's paying nothing off of the principal. That's what it's

costing us. In my mind, that would be massive debt. If we had something

positive to show for it, then there might be some rationalization for

having built up what I consider to be massive debt, in spite of the

assurance from the throne speech that it's not massive.

The Columbia River Treaty deal itself — the first great monument to

Social Credit in the province of British Columbia.... We ask annually

about this: what has it cost us? I don't have the exact figure in front

of me, but I know it's in excess of $1.25 billion. Mr. Speaker, you

won't remember personally, but there are others who will remember the

Premier of the day assuring the people of British Columbia that it

would cost them not one nickel for this great project. Certainly, Mr.

Speaker, not one nickel; it has cost us in excess of $1.25 billion — I

think my figure is probably out of date by this time — and what do we

have to show for it? We have cheap power on the American side of the

border. We have a tremendous flood-control program on the American side

of the border, What do we have in B.C.? A surplus of power that we

can't even give away to the Americans at giveaway rates. They won't

take it, fast as we're prepared to give it to them at subsidized rates.

That's what we have to show for it, Mr. Speaker. And a two-river

policy? Surplus power that we don't know what to do with. The Leader of

the Opposition today suggested some use for that surplus power.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What else do we have to show for it? We have a northeast coal

project producing surplus coal at a time when the southeast can produce

all the coal for which we can find markets. We're still trying to find

out how much that one cost us, Mr. Speaker, At least the government

will tell us, year by year as we put the question on the order paper,

what it has cost the citizens of British Columbia to give flood control

to the Americans, and cheap power by way of the Columbia River. We are

getting those figures. We have yet to be told how much the citizens of

British Columbia are going to be paying, and for how long, to subsidize

the export of cheap coal to the Japanese via the northeast coal route.

We have not the figures. We can't get them from the government. We know

they're in excess of a billion dollars but we don't know how much in

excess. What do we have to show for that? Certainly no progress for

British Columbia.

B.C. Place: a $250 million donation from the citizens of British

Columbia, channeled through B.C. Building Corporation and given to B.C.

Place, where it's called contributed capital — a donation that's

costing the citizens of British Columbia $2.5 million a month. Will the

revenue from B.C. Place ever come near paying half of the interest on

that project? I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad project. I'm

saying, was it put together, from the point of view of fiscal

management, in a responsible way? What responsibility is there in

putting together a project that once again was not supposed to cost us

anything, but when we trace it back to where the money came from, we

find that the citizens of British Columbia are paying $2.5 million a

month in interest charges alone to provide that particular giant

project for the city of Vancouver?

Light rapid transit has been talked about. Now there is an example

of fiscal management. It's great stuff, Mr. Speaker. They've incurred

liabilities of about a billion dollars — it will be more than that by

the time they finish — and they have yet to arrive at a plan for paying

for it. Who's going to pay for it? How much of it is going to be

charged against the traveling passengers, how much against the property

owners? Is that fiscal management — to say we're going to spend a

billion dollars and we don't know how or when we're going to pay for

it, or who is going to pay? The only thing we do know is that it's

going to cost us $10 million a month, forever and a day, to pay the

interest charges alone. It will never be paid off, Mr. Speaker. They'll

be borrowing to pay the interest every month. Our treasury bills —

we're simply borrowing there to pay the interest. They're rolling over.

Borrowing indefinitely — is that fiscal management? Is that fiscal

planning?

Expo? I don't know what Expo is going to cost. We're supposed to pay

for it out of lottery tickets. Let's say it's half a billion just on

those five megaprojects; we know it's going to be that anyway. Four

billion dollars invested in those projects, none of which will ever pay

for itself. The interest alone will cost us, forever and a day, $40

million a month. That's Social Credit fiscal management. The Throne

Speech: they have prevented "the buildup of massive" public debt. How

much is massive? A fourfold increase in debt in nine years, and they

say they've prevented the buildup of massive debt.

I like page 3: "Our province, in terms of its people, natural

resources, fresh water and energy, has a potential which is limitless."

That's true; we do have the potential, the resources, the people. We

have everything going for us except the government. It's the government

that has stood in the way of progress in the province for the past nine

years. Where other Canadian provinces have worked their way out of the

recession, B.C. has worked itself deeper into the mire. We have nothing

to be proud of in B.C. We have only something to be ashamed of. As I

said earlier, for the first time in history B.C. has done worse than

the other provinces, worse than the Canadian average. That's something

we should be ashamed of rather than proud of.

The forest picture will be talked about by everyone. I won't spend

any time other than to say that we all should recognize the importance

of it. I think everyone will give lip service to it. The government,

unfortunately, are the ones in a position to do something about it, and

unfortunately it would seem to be their attitude that it can wait, that

we must go ahead with megaprojects to show to our own people and to the

world in the hope of winning the next provincial election. In the

meantime, forget about the forests; that will be somebody else's

problem some time in the future. I won't go into that in the limited

time that I have, but I probably will in later debates.

I would like to discuss the pipeline, and probably a lot of us will

want to get into that as well. "My government will continue to assist

British Columbia's representatives in Ottawa to press ahead with the

federal government's commitment to the pipeline so as to ensure that

construction begins

[ Page 5144 ]

as soon as possible." Mr. Speaker, what is the

federal government's commitment to the pipeline? The most recent word

from the federal Minister of Energy is that perhaps in some two or

three years, if B.C. is prepared to kick in its share, there might be

some plan to move ahead. The Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

admitted in the House recently that all of the staff that were working

on this project at B.C. Hydro have been let go, that even the furniture

in the area where they were working has gone. There is absolutely

nothing at all being done, and there will be nothing done until there

is some money forthcoming from Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, what is B.C.'s commitment? So far, to the best of my

knowledge, all we have offered is to advise the federal government what

route the pipeline should take. That's the extent of our contribution,

to the best of my knowledge. What are we prepared to put in?

When the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the pipeline, the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) laughed. I was sitting in almost this

same seat, in the same House, when that now Attorney-General, then the

Minister of Energy, announced — once again as we were heading into an

election — that the provincial government was going to construct a

pipeline between the mainland and Vancouver Island. He admitted at the

time that it had been promised in every election since 1966, but he

said: "This time we mean it."

[11:45]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: That was for the 1983 election. I'm not going to repeat all the promises of the previous years.

Not once have we been told what the provincial government is

prepared to put into it. There was a reference here to the federal

government commitment. What is the federal government commitment? Is it

going to be another northeast coal project, where the people of British

Columbia will never be told how much the taxpayers are going to be

paying in the event this project ever is built? Secret negotiations? We

can appreciate the need for that, but surely we can be told something

about what the provincial government's input is intended to be,

something about what the federal government really is promising. Or is

there any promise?

The federal Minister of Energy, it seems to me, is pointing to

another election campaign in saying "two or three years" — another set

of promises made by the provincial government and by the federal

government. "This time we're going to build a pipeline." It'll be a new

minister. It won't be the one we had making the promise in 1983, but

it'll be another real promise: "This time we're really going to do it."

From then on, and for how many more election campaigns, Mr. Speaker,

will we still be talking about a natural gas pipeline?

In the meantime, what about the proposition put forward today by the

Leader of the Opposition? What about this electrical power that we're

so anxious to subsidize in exporting to California? How about showing a

little anxiety for the people of British Columbia, in particular the

ones on Vancouver Island? To me that sounded like a very sensible

proposal. I would think that the province of British Columbia, in the

event that this deal ever does go ahead, is going to be on the hook for

at least $250 million — at least half the price of the project,

including the operating losses for a number of years. Suppose we were

to put only the interest on that into a program to reduce electrical

rates for consumers on Vancouver Island so that they would increase the

use of electricity to heating purposes, getting away from the oil, not

worrying too much about natural gas until the federal and provincial

governments do something about it — use that $2.5 million even if it

were a lending program at low interest rates. That would do a lot for

the economy of British Columbia and for Vancouver Island immediately.

It could start right away. We don't need any further agreements, and

all I'm talking about is the interest that the provincial government

would have to pay in the event that this project goes ahead.

Mr. Speaker, to me it sounded like a very good proposal. It would

provide employment immediately on the Island. It would provide us with

better access — that is, more affordable access — to the best of all

sources of energy from the point of view of pollution control; it's

absolutely clean. It would encourage people on the Island to invest

some of their savings, and that's one of the things we certainly need

in this province: enough confidence in the economy so that people —

those who have them — will spend their savings. They would be able to

invest in more electrical equipment in homes, small businesses and

industry all over the Island. In sales tax alone the government would

recover a lot of the investment. It's a good proposal. It's one that

the government should look at while they are pretending to be

interested in one day building a pipeline. Mr. Speaker, I commend that

most sincerely to the government. They should consider that and move in

that direction as quickly as possible.

MR. WILLIAMS: Equal treatment with Los Angeles.

MR. STUPICH: Well, we don't expect our own citizens to be

treated as well as we're prepared to treat Californians, but let's

approach that anyway.

There's one cheery note in the throne speech, and I think we have to

recognize the government's ability in this direction at least.

MR. COCKE: Forty jobs for Maple Ridge.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not thinking of that one; I'm thinking of

the 100 jobs for Kamloops. We can really point to something. Look at

the market that's going to provide for technological equipment — new

electronic equipment. One hundred jobs in Kamloops — B.C. Lottery

Foundation. Mr. Speaker, isn't there something just a little bit sick

about a government that can point with pride to only one accomplishment

in the past year — and that built upon the sale of lottery tickets —

and at the same time say that the majority of the government share of

the revenue from this is going into paying for Expo?

Mr. Speaker, there are many things the government could have done —

even small things — and could have pointed to with pride. But to be

able to say in the throne speech "this is the one accomplishment that

we have to show," to me is a measure not of a government that is

governing in the interests of the people of the province of British

Columbia but of a government that is sick, has no idea at all what is

needed in British Columbia, has no concern at all for the people who

are suffering in this province and no concern at all for their needs.

They talk about the needs for higher education, but what concern do

they really have for education? The Leader of the Opposition quoted

from different sources about the need for quality education. In the

throne speech we talk about cooperating with the universities. Mr.

Speaker, you've heard some

[ Page 5145 ]

of those stories about how the government and how

the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) are cooperating with the institutions of higher learning in

this province. You've seen some of the threats. Is that cooperation?

People reading this and hearing about the government's new spirit of

cooperation and about the government's intention to move in that

direction, and knowing at the same time that when they talk about

cooperating with the universities the minister is holding a gun to the

heads of the university administrations and telling them exactly what

he wants them to do.... Is that what he calls cooperation?

Is that the kind of cooperation they're going to exert on the trade

union movement in the province? They have done in the past, but they're

talking here about a new day. Does that mean a worse day, Mr. Speaker?

They're talking here about cooperation with business and industry. Is

that what they mean by cooperation? People reading this aren't going to

read just one or two lines. If they're going to read it at all, they're

going to read through it. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the promise

of cooperation in this document, to those who want that kind of

initiative from the government, is going to be read not as a promise to

meet with them as equals and truly cooperate for the people of British

Columbia but rather as a threat that the government has more diabolical

moves in mind and intends to have its way in every respect in

everything that happens in the province of British Columbia: to

interfere more with what local government is doing; to interfere more

with what business is doing; to interfere more with what industry is

doing; to take total and absolute control of the daily lives of

everyone in the province of British Columbia. That, Mr. Speaker, is the

way I read cooperation in this document.

Mr. Speaker, what promise, what hope, what confidence is going to be

generated when people read those kinds of remarks in this particular

throne speech? B.C. can be better. The throne speech admits that when

it tells us that we have all of the resources, we have the people, we

have facilities for instruction. We have a record of having done better

in Canada. We can be better. But there is absolutely no indication in

the speech before us today that this government recognizes its

responsibilities — and also its opportunities.

The Leader of the Opposition also talked about the postwar

reconstruction committee that was established by the Legislature during

the Second World War. That committee traveled all around the province.

It gave people all over B.C. an opportunity to meet with an all-party

committee of the Legislature and give them their ideas. We're all

getting ideas. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, you get ideas from your

constituents, as I do from mine. Where do people go who have ideas —

and perhaps some money; not very much — that they believe could do

something to improve our economy? There aren't enough doors open.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: My colleague mentions food banks. That's one

place they are going, unfortunately. I suppose in all fairness we have

to say that not only are we doing better in lotteries, but we're also,

I think, the one Canadian province that surpasses all others when it

comes to food banks.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, okay, we're going to be better in another

way too. We're going to build the Coquihalla Highway, which the

previous member mentioned. It's immediately ahead of tourism in the

throne speech — and rightly so, Mr. Speaker. Come to B.C. and see the

only toll highway in the whole of Canada, as far as I can find out.

That's another first. We used to have them, but it's a long time since

we had a toll highway. We had toll bridges.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, it's part of the highway system.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I suppose that's one thing to say for it: it

will provide jobs for those collecting tolls. This year it's lotteries;

next year a couple of toll booths collecting tolls. So there's hope for

progress.

We can be better; that's the tragedy of it. This government has set

about a program of deliberately creating confrontation between

management and labour, between government and all of the elected bodies

that serve the people of this province. This government, led by the

Premier, when they campaigned in the 1975 election, promised, among

other things, to give more authority to the local school boards and

more opportunities to local municipalities. Well, what authority does a

school board have today?

AN HON. MEMBER: Pay the fine.

MR. STUPICH: Pay the fine. Send a budget in that the minister

doesn't like. He, in a spirit of cooperation, issues threats that

they'd better do thus and so within a certain number of hours. That's

cooperation, Mr. Speaker? That's giving them more authority — authority

to do what? To do exactly what the minister outlines. The forms are all

ready for filling in. They could be filled in at the minister's office,

but they're sent to the school board, and they're told exactly what

they're to do. Their instructions are very precise, and they're told to

send them back in by a certain time. That's giving authority to the

local school boards, Mr. Speaker?

B.C. can be better. There are economic opportunities in the

province. There are economic opportunities which we don't even know

about. There are things that have to be done in the province. One day

we are going to have to take seriously the problem of logging and not

replanting and not looking after the trees we plant. How many of the

ones which we plant survive? The limbing, the thinning, the fertilizing

that could be done.... We know a lot of these things, but there's so

much that we don't know about research and development.

I visited Weyerhaeuser down in Washington state as a member of the

forestry committee in 1964-65. I was going to say that they were

spending more on research and development in that one company than is

being spent in the whole of the province of British Columbia. But the

comparison is just ridiculous; there's just no comparison. We should be

doing a lot more here in the province of British Columbia, where we

depend so much upon our forest wealth.

Mr. Speaker, B.C. can be better, but we can't be better as long as

we're led by a government whose only goal is to win the next election —

a government that is so concerned about being very repressive in the

early years of its administration

[ Page 5146 ]

after each election, and particularly after 1983,

that when it promises to relax somewhat there is a spirit of hope in

the community, a hope that maybe the government isn't going to be as

bad as it has been. That's the best we have to hope for from this

administration: the hope that next year, closer to an election, the

government will let up just a little bit more. The old story about the

fellow in the insane asylum hitting his head against the brick wall,

only because it felt so good when he stopped....

Mr. Speaker, what else does the government of the province — the

Social Credit administration — have to offer us today? There's no hope

in this document. We can't all have Lottery Corporation offices opening

in our communities, and there seems to be nothing else, no other plans.

What hope is the government offering the people of British Columbia in

this document? There's not even the hope that there will be an election

pretty soon. At least then they might hope there would be a change in

the administration, but there isn't even that hope.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the hope, I suppose, lingers. We've

been built up for a year now to expect something in 1985. There is

still some lingering hope in the budget to be introduced next week that

there will be some promise at least.

Mr. Speaker, we've been let down by this speech. The people of

British Columbia have been let down by this. They expected something

and there's nothing there. They expected something from a certain TV

presentation that was made ten days ago, and there was nothing there.

They're hoping — still hoping — that there will be something in that

budget. Mr. Speaker, we need it desperately. It's certainly too late to

influence anything that might be in the budget, but we do need it

desperately in British Columbia. B.C. can be better. We have a

responsibility in this House to do what we can to make sure it is

better.

To talk about international problems, our problems are made by Homo

sapiens. Everything else is here for us to work with. The problems are

of our own making. How can we turn to someone else — the federal

government, the international community — and say they have done wrong

by us unless we are prepared to show that we're able to do something

right for ourselves? We have yet to show that in British Columbia.

[12:00]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take my place in the

debate on the throne speech, but due to the time I would move

adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada